Is an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent God Incoherent?

Some people claim the existence of God cannot be falsified. As I have argued elsewhere, this is not true. One way to falsify God’s existence is to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent. This can be done by demonstrating that two or more supposed divine attributes are logically incompatible. For example, it has been argued that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are logically incompatible.

The objection

The argument is set forth along these lines: Omnipotence entails the power to actualize any state of affairs that is logically possible to actualize. There is nothing logically incoherent about an omnipotent being committing evil, so omnipotence must include the power to actualize a world in which the omnipotent being commits evil. As an omnibenevolent being, however, God is incapable of committing evil. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. While a being can be either omnibenevolent or omnipotent, no being can be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Since the theistic concept of God entails both, the God of theism cannot exist.

Areas of agreement

How might the theist respond to this objection? Let us start with some points of agreement. First, we agree that God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Theistic philosophers have long held that the concept of God is that of the greatest conceivable being (GCB). God is a being of which a greater cannot be conceived. If we can conceive of some being Y who is greater than the being we call God, then being Y is the true God. Since it is greater to be all-powerful than partially powerful, the GCB must possess the property of being all-powerful. Likewise, since it is greater to be all-good than partially good, the GCB must possess the property of being all-good.

Second, we agree that God cannot commit evil. A being whose very nature is all-good cannot commit evil. If he did, he would cease being all-good and thus cease being the GCB (a logical and metaphysical impossibility[1]). As such, it is logically impossible for God to commit evil.

Third, we agree that God’s omnipotence does not include the power to actualize a state of affairs which includes God committing acts of evil.

Point of disagreement

We disagree, however, that God’s inability to commit evil is incompatible with his omnipotence. Omnipotence only requires that the being who possesses the property have the power to actualize logically possible states of affairs. Since a state of affairs in which God commits evil is not a logically possible state of affairs (due to his omnibenevolence), God’s inability to actualize such a world is not a deficiency in his omnipotence. To say otherwise would require us to affirm that God can do what is logically impossible for him to do.[2]

What is the nature of omnipotence?

At this point the anti-theist may object that I am begging the question. The question is not whether God has the power to actualize every state of affairs that is logically possible for him to actualize, but whether God has the power to actualize every logically possible state of affairs. If there are more logically possible states of affairs than God is able to actualize, then he is not truly impotent, and if he is not omnipotent then he is not God.

Is there a logically possible world in which an omnipotent being commits evil? Not if that omnipotent being is God, but what if that omnipotent being is someone other than God? What if omnipotence was instantiated in a great being (GB) rather than the GCB? A GB does not need to possess every great-making property, so we can imagine a GB who possesses the great-making property of omnipotence but not the great-making property of omnibenevolence. It is logically possible for such a being to commit evil, and thus logically possible for him to actualize a world in which he does, in fact, commit evil. By examining the property of omnipotence independent of the property of omnibenevolence, then, we discover that omnipotence requires the being who possesses it to have the power to actualize a world in which he commits evil. Since a GB possesses that power whereas the GCB does not, it follows that there are more logically possible states of affairs than the GCB is able to actualize, and thus the GCB is not truly omnipotent. But if the GCB is not omnipotent, then he is not the GCB since the GCB must possess all great-making properties, including omnipotence. There is a logical incompatibility, then, between the attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence, and thus a logical incoherence in the very concept of the GCB (God). If the concept of God is incoherent, then God cannot exist. Theism is demonstrably false.

False presumption

While this conclusion seems inescapable, don’t dig God’s grave just yet. The objector makes two critical mistakes. First, he thinks the power of an omnipotent GB to actualize a state of affairs in which he commits evil tells us something meaningful about the nature of omnipotence, namely that any omnipotent being must be able to commit evil.[3] Not so. As William Lane Craig points out, while a GB may possess the power to actualize a state of affairs in which he (the GB) commits evil, he still could not actualize a state of affairs in which God commits evil since it is logically impossible for God to commit evil, and the GB cannot actualize logically impossible states of affairs. If omnipotence does not include the power to actualize a state of affairs in which the GCB commits evil, then it is no mark against the power of the GCB that he is unable to commit evil.

So whether omnipotence is instantiated in a GB or the GCB, it does not and cannot include the power to actualize a state of affairs in which the GCB commits evil. That means the number of logically possible worlds is the same, whether omnipotence is instantiated in a GB or the GCB. An omnipotent GB and an omnipotent GCB can both actualize a world in which an omnipotent GB commits evil, but neither an omnipotent GB nor an omnipotent GCB can actualize a world in which the GCB commits evil.[4] It follows, then, that there is no basis for thinking the GCB is not omnipotent.

The objector could counter that I am begging the question when I say that even the GB cannot actualize a state of affairs in which God commits evil since this presumes God might exist. The very purpose of his thought experiment is to show that God cannot exist because he cannot be omnipotent because he cannot commit evil, so it does me no good to counter his argument by saying that even the GB lacks the power to actualize a world in which God commits evil. This line of reasoning is mistaken, however. The thought experiment only tells us what would need to be true of an omnipotent GB, not what would need to be true of every omnipotent being. It’s not begging the question to point out that what power can accomplish in one particular being need not be the same for every other being since every being has a different nature, and the power to actualize states of affairs is always in accordance with the being’s nature. An omnibenevolent being would not need to possess the power to commit evil since it is logically impossible for him to commit evil due to his nature, and omnipotence does not entail the power to do the logically contradictory. There simply is no reason to think an omnibenevolent being cannot also be omnipotent.

The objector’s second mistake is in thinking it is possible for a being other than the GCB to possess the property of omnipotence. He considers what omnipotence would look like if it was instantiated in a GB, and concludes that omnipotence must include the power to actualize a world in which the omnipotent being commits evil. But if it is not possible for any being other than the GCB to possess the property of omnipotence, then the thought experiment fails to tell us anything meaningful about the nature of omnipotence. The central question, then, becomes whether or not it is possible for omnipotence to be instantiated in any being other than the GCB. I will argue that it is not possible. I’ll make my argument in three steps. First, I’ll argue that omnipotence can only be instantiated in a single being, then I’ll argue that this being must be a necessary being, and finally that this necessary being must be the GCB.

Only the GCB can be omnipotent

Omnipotence rides solo

How many beings can possess the property of omnipotence? Only one being can possess the property of omnipotence for the simple reason that omnipotence includes the power to actualize a world in which all contingent beings[5] (other than oneself[6]) are destroyed. If omnipotence was instantiated in two beings, it would be possible for being A to will that all other contingent beings be destroyed while being B wills that all other contingent beings be preserved. Each would prevent the other from actualizing their desired state of affairs. An omnipotent being, however, cannot be prevented from exercising his power to actualize a logically possible state of affairs. The only way to avoid this logical contradiction is to avoid a world in which more than one being is omnipotent. If omnipotence is instantiated in the world at all, then, it can only be instantiated by a single being.

Omnipotence and necessary beings

What kind of being can omnipotence be instantiated in? Will any kind of being do? No. Omnipotence cannot be instantiated in a contingent being because having all power includes the power to sustain one’s existence eternally.[7] Contingent beings do not exist eternally, but began to exist in the finite past, and thus cannot be omnipotent. Only a necessary being, has the power to sustain his existence eternally.

Volition narrows the field to one

While we have narrowed the field to a single necessary being, which one is it? If one subscribes to Platonism, there are an infinite number of necessary beings in the form of abstract objects. How can we narrow infinity down to one? Volition. Omnipotence can only be instantiated in a personal being because actualizing states of affairs is a function of the will. Anything that lacks volition cannot be omnipotent. Abstract objects are impersonal and causally inert (i.e. they do not stand in causal relations to anything), and thus cannot be omnipotent. The GCB, however, is a personal being and does stand in causal relations with other beings, and thus he is the only necessary being capable of possessing the property of omnipotence.

If omnipotence cannot be instantiated in a GB, then imagining what the property would look like if it were instantiated in a GB is a pointless exercise, comparable to imagining what temporality would look like if it were instantiated in an atemporal being. The only way to understand the nature of omnipotence is by examining it as it is instantiated in the GCB. As we’ve already seen, the GCB has the power to actualize any logically possible state of affairs, but that does not include a state of affairs in which the GCB commits evil because it is logically impossible for the GCB to do so. As such, it is not a logically possible state of affairs, and the GCB’s inability to actualize such a world does not detract from his omnipotence. While there may be reasons for thinking God does not exist, surely the supposed incompatibility between omnipotence and omnibenevolence is not among them.

____________________

[1]The GCB’s nature must be changeless because a being whose nature is incapable of change is greater than a being whose nature can change (Also, any change in his nature would entail the loss of at least one great-making property. Since the GCB must possess all great-making properties to be the GCB [if he lacked even one great-making property, we could conceive of an even greater being, thereby making this other being the true GCB], he would cease to exist if he experience any change in his nature). Therefore, it is a logical contradiction to say that a being whose nature is incapable of change experienced a change in his nature.

It is metaphysically impossible as well. A being is inseparable from its nature. If you change its nature, you change the kind of being it is. If the GCB’s nature changed, such that he could commit evil, he would cease to exist as the GCB. But one of the properties of the GCB is necessary existence (a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is contingent), and a necessary being cannot not exist. It is metaphysically impossible, then, for the GCB to commit evil.

[2]To think the inability to actualize a world in which the GCB commits evil demonstrates that he does not possess true omnipotence is like thinking the GCB’s inability to annihilate himself demonstrates that he lacks omnipotence. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, and thus the GCB must possess necessary existence. He cannot not exist. The GCB’s inability to annihilate himself is not due to a lack of power, but due to the logical impossibility of such a state of affairs. The concept of a necessary being who could cease to exist is logically incoherent. Likewise, the power to actualize a state of affairs in which the GCB commits evil is logically incoherent because it requires the GCB to do what is logically impossible. Omnipotence entails the power to actualize logically possible states of affairs, not logically impossible states of affairs, so the GCB’s inability to actualize a world in which he commits evil is not a deficiency in his omnipotence.

[3]The objector’s thought experiment doesn’t reveal anything new about the nature of omnipotence. No one disputes that an omnipotent being who is not all-good could actualize a world in which he commits evil, but it does not follow that a being who is omnibenevolent cannot be omnipotent because he is unable to commit evil.

[4]Later, I will argue that a GB cannot be omnipotent. I am merely considering the possibility at this point for the sake of argument.

[5]The power to destroy other beings excludes necessary beings because necessary beings are such that their very nature requires that they exist; i.e. they cannot not exist. It is logically impossible to destroy that which cannot not exist. That is why the argument that says two omnipotent beings cannot exist because both beings would have to have the power to destroy the other does not work. As necessary beings, it is logically impossible that either be destroyed, and thus not a test of the other’s omnipotence since omnipotence only requires the power to actualize logically possible states of affairs (and it is not logically possible to destroy a necessary being). The inability of both necessary and omnipotent beings to destroy each other is not due to a lack of power in either, but due to the logical impossibility of the task. Destroying each other is just as logically impossible as creating a square circle.

[6]If the omnipotent being was also a contingent being, it would stand to reason that he would not include himself in the destruction (although it would be logically possible for him to destroy himself as well since he is not a necessary being). As I’ll argue momentarily, however, contingent beings cannot be omnipotent.

[7]It requires more power to sustain one’s existence for all eternity than it does to sustain one’s existence for a finite temporal duration, so the being who has the power to sustain his own existence for eternity has more power than the being who is only able to sustain his own existence over a finite temporal duration. Seeing that contingent beings only exist for a finite temporal duration, contingent beings cannot be omnipotent.

Advertisements

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Related

311 Responses to “Is an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent God Incoherent?”

Arguments conform to the logic by which they are conceived but that means nothing outside the mind that conceives the arguments, the premises and conclusions lead only from and to the logic of the conceptualizer. There is no God to defend or argue for; God is the figment of man’s imagination. Why do you suppose that Jesus never argued about the existence of God the Father? But simply stated that the kingdom of the Father was within you?

The issue isn’t one of argument rather it’s judgment. As Jesus/Yahshua said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

“The fear of YHWH is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate. Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine. By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, all who judge rightly.” (Proverbs 8:13-16)

It seems to be overlooked that it is impossible for man to conceive the GCB, therefore the GCB spoken of is inconceivable. Your argument needs to be amended to “The Greatest Inconceivable Being”, which is also impossible to argue.

The only one that could conceive a GCB is the GCB Himself . . . And that is exactly what He did by making His own Devine Being part of His on Divine Creation that He alone conceived and made. Jesus Christ is the GCB and He did conceive Himself, and like us was subjected to temptation because, like us, He was also flesh (Gen 6:3). You haven’t forgotten that man was made in the GCB’s own image and according to the GCB’s likeness have you?

If your argument that the GCB cannot sin, then Jesus Christ Himself never overcame sin and if He never overcame sin, He did not over come death. This would mean that we are all still dead in our sin and have believed in the GCB in vain!

I am convinced God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, however, I know of no logical reason that must be true. (I read your argument, and I do not agree it follows itself.) That mainstream Christianity teaches God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent is tradition, not logical necessity. There are very intelligent, sincere Christians who believe otherwise, and they cite Scripture to make their point.

To me, the question is not whether or not there is a God. Although most of the world, including most Christians, seem to disagree with me, I am totally convinced that there must be a God and that truth can be proved many different ways. Not only can the existence of God be proved, it is also just plainly obvious.

The question is not whether there is a God. He absolutely does exist. The question is “Who is this God?” I am convinced He is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Scripture: “Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.”
In other words, don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil.

The Universe, all you can know, speaks:

“I alone am the cause of my own effect;

You are within me; I am within you.” Know me.

Gnosticism is a philosophical movement which started in pre-Christian times. Some religious historians believe that it had its source in the Jewish community of Alexandria and was later picked up by some Christian groups in Judea and the Galilee.

The name is derived from the Greek word “gnosis” which literally means “knowledge.” However, the English words “Insight” and “enlightenment” capture more of the meaning of “gnosis.” It is pronounced with a silent “G” (NO-sis). Gnosticism is not factual, intellectual, rational knowledge, such as is involved in mathematics and physics; that would have been more accurately represented by the Greek world “episteme.” Rather, Gnosticism involves the relational or experiential knowledge of God and of the divine or spiritual nature within us.

Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. Said the Lord Jesus: John 6:61 Jesus sensed that his disciples were having a hard time with this and said, “Does this throw you completely? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing. The Spirit can make life. Sheer muscle and willpower don’t make anything happen. Every word I’ve spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-making. But some of you are resisting, refusing to have any part in this.” (Jesus knew from the start that some weren’t going to risk themselves with him. He knew also who would betray him.) He went on to say, “This is why I told you earlier that no one is capable of coming to me on his own. You get to me only as a gift from the Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Gnostics believe in finding their own truth, and don’t believe in “hell,” “sin,” or that Jesus came to die for our sins -– but was a human messiah who served as a living example of how we should think and behave.

Said Jesus to Pilate: “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

I have heard that voice since 12 years of age. Not everything on the road I did reflected that sentiment but that voice has never left and when and I took the more righteous road, that voice was there for me, yet again.

Your comments have nothing to do with this discussion. Please refrain from posting comments just for the sake of saying something. Don’t be guilty of the aphorism, “Some people have something to say. Others just have to say something.”

If you want to comment, interact with the argument. Dispute my claims. Dispute my reasoning. But don’t just spew out accusations and complaints and information irrelevant to the topic of the post. If you are unable to do so of your own accord, I will start deleting your comments since comments of this nature are not adding any value to the discussion, but merely distracting from it.

“Conceive” means to form the idea of something. Clearly we can form the idea of a being of which no greater can be conceived. It is a being with maximal excellence. As to power, he has all power. As to knowledge, he knows all truths. Etc. See, I just formed the idea. It would only be inconceivable if there was something logically incoherent about such a being. But there is no logical inconsistency in a being who is maximally excellent.

As for the rest of your comments, your logic is so convoluted that it defies explanation. Not only does it not follow that if Jesus could not sin that He did not overcome sin, but it surely doesn’t follow that if he didn’t overcome sin that he didn’t overcome death. Jesus could have been a sinner and still been raised from the dead. Overcoming sin has nothing to do with the resurrection.

Jason:
It is impossible to know what maximally excellent is; it is impossible to know what all power is; it is impossible to know what all truths are unless you are that being and I know you are not nor could you ever be. See I just conceived the idea that it is inconceivable that you are that God/Gods created by the ancestors. To conceive an idea about the inconceivable, defeats any attempt to debate the impossible. To conceive “just an idea” about a concept impossible to know, is exactly what the ancestors did when they conceived the Gods. So you are trying to debate with what the ancestors spent thousands of years perfecting, circular arguments defending delusions of greatness without knowledge and with the punniest of shallow beliefs sucking the masses into a perpetual state of supernatural hoaxes based on impossibilities. No greater a trance was ever humanity snared by, that made men more stupid by, than the idea of Gods, by using magic tricks to deceive people. BUT They made a great living at it and still do with their miracles and ludicrous nonsense.

But Jesus the man, mocked them, debunked their myths and mentally scourged them about it until they arrested and captured him to murder but he escaped the demise they had in store for him because he was smarter than their stupidity could possibly allow for. Yet you continue to perpetuate the resurrection as though it was a real event and for all your theological studies you still believe yourself an expert in the unknowable using childhood ideas of debate like “Can God make a rock too heavy to lift?”

Get over it. Man up and take disagreement on the chin. There is no Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent being. And all disagreements from your one view are necessarily a distraction to your inconceivable cause postings. Don’t be so Pharisaical minded. Why is it that when I quote Jesus you always say it has nothing to do with the topic?

And why is it that you practically never quote Jesus when plodding your posts. The one you claim to follow as a Christian?

If Christianity is allowed to convert the heathens, I think it only fair that the heathens are given a chance to fight their corner. . If believers don’t hear contradictory views, they have little reason to truly consider what they hold dear. Instead of campaigning for censorship based on “distraction”.

Christianity has almost everything going its way – culture and art for the last two millennia have been subject to its influence. It is in the home, it permeates society, and it recruits young. You can try to keep the flock faithful by silencing critics – or, failing that, petitioning the faithful to boycott their works. Alternatively, you can hone your own arguments, rally your evangelists, and spread the good word: and let your rivals do the same.

Having a bad day Jason? Reflect what Jesus went through as he put his life on the line with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus which allowed them to pull off his great escape from the tomb (you call the resurrection) and sufficiently healed from the crucifixion (don’t cling to me I have not yet healed) until Jesus was ready to leave the country for good with his entourage to lands where people were more tolerant than his own religious-driven, dogma-oriented, hypocrites who could not stand to have their pristine toes treaded on by an impoverished no-status carpenter using only a common sense defence they characterized as being glib.

I am a bit out of my league concerning all of the scholarly arguments presented here, so I would ask you to suffer my deficiencies for a little while. I am not challenging your logic the GCB could not bring sin into creation; I am challenging your logic that the GCB could not sin.

As I understand it, the argument is based on the fact sin exists in the GCB’s own creation, and you argue the GCB did not create sin because He could not sin; yet sin exists nonetheless. If the GCB did not create sin, then how does it exist in His own creation? I will not address this question for now, but I want to challenge your theory that the GCB could not sin.

Your argument does not seem to consider the idea that the GCB could also become part of His own corrupted creation; accepting the fact His own creation somehow became corrupted by the sin.
It would not be logical to become part of the corrupted creation and not be subjected to the corruption of the creation; therefore the opportunity and possibility for the GCB to sin existed.

Concerning you comment about the resurrection of Christ not being proof Jesus overcame sin addresses something I never said. Jesus overcame sin in His flesh and blood during His earthly life by not sinning.

To the man who dare calls himself “I Am”.
With all due respect, I am not trying to be combative with my address to you, but I cannot address you as “I AM” because there is only one “I AM” and you are not HIM. For me, it would be blasphemous to address you as God.

Wether we agree or not, I want to say I like your passion. It’s interesting that with all of the philosophical rants of knowledge that has taken place, all you have, all I have, all that Jason has, and all that any of us can have to support our position is as to wether there is a one true God or not, is “belief”. It is by faith that we believe one way or the other.

Since you quoted scripture (John 18:37) to support your belief (which is what you base your faith on). I would also quote scripture to point out that the your ability to have faith, as well as all humans, comes from God, not from yourself.

Rom 12:3 “For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith”.

Kevin, good point, however Leo (the fake “i am”) will tell you that he does not operate on belief but on knowledge. He will tell you that he does not need faith but has concrete knowledge of the truth of the “Father in him” which he cannot see but knows for certain He (the Father) is there (in Leo) because he himself (Leo) exists.

Ironically this sounds similar to our belief in God in that Christ lives and is in union in the spirit of His saints. However, Leo goes off the reservation because he claims that there is no God and that he is in fact god.

This is akin to eastern mystical religions which claim we all have “a part of god” inside to one day return to the spiritual soup in the heavens.

Regardless of what Leo believes, our faith in Christ is also based on knowledge and not blind belief. It needs to be said that our faith is based on solid knowledge of the truth and not fables or hoaxes as the apostles said themselves. True knowledge is the knowledge of our Great God and Savior. Faith that counts and matters is faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone. All other faith is in vain.

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (ESV)

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (KJV)

The knowledge that one exists proves only that it is true they exist. It is not proof that God does not exist, and it is not proof that anybody, that simply by existing, is a god of any kind. Existing is not knowledge of how we came into being.

This leaves only the possibility to form a belief based on one’s faith in something wether it is true or false. This is identified and called faith. Faith is trusting in what one believes.

I used scripture because Leo claims to believe in scripture and that he hears the voice of scripture. That is a good thing. He cannot have it both ways. Either all scripture is to believed upon or none is to be believed. Leo cannot use one scripture as proof of his belief and deny another scripture.

I agree with your points about our faith and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but this discussion is not about who God is, but does He exist or not. Leo is not even in a place where he believes there is a one true God, much less knowing who He is. The one thing we know is, no matter what Leo says, there will l always be something deep down inside him and us that lets us know there is a God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. It is put there by God, everybody is born with a measure of it, and it is called “FAITH”. An atheist can deny the existence of God till the cows come home, but we know God put something deep down inside of them that will always be at odds with their belief and if they are honest with themselves they’ll find that this annoying tickle in their heart is FAITH.

Kevin Schwartz:
With all due respect: That’s rich……..
“To the man who dare calls himself “I Am”.
With all due respect, I am not trying to be combative with my address to you, but I cannot address you as “I AM” because there is only one “I AM” and you are not HIM. For me, it would be blasphemous to address you as God.”

That statement is almost the exact same thing that the Pharisees said of Jesus. You may not have read it so here is the biblical account.

John 10: I and the Father are one heart and mind.”

31-32 Again the Jews picked up rocks to throw at him. Jesus said, “I have made a present to you from the Father of a great many good actionable words. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 The Jews said, “We’re not stoning you for anything good you did, but for what you said—this blasphemy of calling yourself God.”

34-38 Jesus said, “I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’—and Scripture doesn’t lie—why do you yell, ‘Blasphemer! Blasphemer!’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I don’t say the things my Father says, well and good; don’t believe me. But if I am doing them, put aside for a moment what you hear me say about myself and just take the evidence of the words that are right before your eyes. Then perhaps things will come together for you, and you’ll see that not only are we saying the same thing, we are the same—Father and Son. He is in me; I am in him.”

39-42 They tried yet again to arrest him, but he slipped through their fingers.

Not all scripture is to be taken literally and apparently you think otherwise. which is the case of the Curse of Ham; AKA, the curse of Canaan as a prime example.

Genesis 9: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

As all authors and peoples do, Moses and the Jews used figures of speech. Some of the Bible’s figures of speech are euphemisms that promote modesty. For example, instead of saying that Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve, the Bible more politely says that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived” (Gen. 4:1). And Moses writes, “the man who lies with” rather than using the modern and more crude phrase, “has sex with.” The reader who misses these common figures of speech will misunderstand the plain meaning of various passages. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. And God through Moses used the same decency when describing other physical relations. For example, when prohibiting incest in the Mosaic Law, rather than saying, a man shall not have intercourse with his mother, Moses wrote that he shall not “uncover his father’s nakedness.”

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ Lev. 20:11

Committing incest with any female “near of kin” can be described as “uncovering his nakedness” (Lev. 18:6), referring to the appropriate male relative, including the nakedness of your father (with your mother, Lev. 18:7), or your sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Lev. 18:9-15). Of course, this can also be described in more literal terms as uncovering the woman’s nakedness, but it can also be referred to, idiomatically, as referring to the husband’s, father’s, brother’s, uncle’s, or son’s nakedness. Her nakedness can equal his nakedness because as Paul writes, your body is “not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19), and from this perspective, your mother’s body belongs to your father. Thus:

“In you [O Israel] men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women…” Ezek. 22:10

And Habakkuk condemns not the sin of homosexuality but of getting your neighbor drunk in order to seduce his wife, when he warns:

“Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!” Hab. 2:15;

Habakkuk warns against looking upon a neighbor’s nakedness, which is just the slightest alternate form of uncovering his nakedness and of what Ham did, of seeing his father’s nakedness. (See also Leviticus 18:10, 14, 17-18; 1 Samuel 20:30 and Ezekiel 22:10-11.)

Mmm . . . Jesus is the I AM. You are not, thus the Pharisees were wrong whereas, I rightly said you are not Him. You knowingly and openly make mockery of Him. So why be so offended by my comment and waste your time lecturing me about Biblical figures of speech? Figuratively or otherwise, I would not want to offend my God by honoring your mockery of Him.

So, from now on, I have new nickname for you; Daredevil because, figuratively, you dare to be a devil…i

Daredevil,
I am not against you. I truly don’t understand what I said that was so critical against you to become this upset. You were the first to use scripture to prove your point and I simply responded with scripture in kind.

Could it be the scripture is doing it’s work as it always does? It is really gnawing at you and this is why: Isa 55:11 “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it”.

You know deep down inside there is a God but you are fighting so hard against it. Please don’t be angry with me about it. Use the faith He gave you and go with it.

I am by judgment giving careful sober consideration to the content of your post. You have presented numerous statements concerning the essential nature of God Whom I reference through Scripture and the gospel. “For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God [Messiah] is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.'” (Romans 1:17) God/Messiah/Spirit indeed constitutes the Supreme Source of all life so it is by Him that we who believe are regenerated, saved and on the last day redeemed to glory by Him [John 6:39, 40, 44, 54,; 7:38; 12:48]. As to the means whereby we draw truth/knowledge/understanding about God: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth by unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident among them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made [John 1:1-5], so that they are without excuse [Job 33:1-42:6; Isaiah 43:10; John 8:24].” (Romans 1:18-20) But the key is this: engaging in mere intellectual exercise, supposition & admission pertaining God’s existence and divine character will not bring everlasting life to us sinners for “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead by its own standards, being by itself. But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? [Acts 17:1-34]” (James 2:17-20) Clarify your frame of reference.

What did you consider as my argument for why God must be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and where do you disagree with it? Because I see it as airtight, logically. If God is a being of which a greater cannot be conceived, then he must be maximally excellent in every attribute that has a maximum (including power and love). If the person we call “God” were not maximally excellent, then we could conceive of a better being than him, and that being would be the true God.

“First, we agree that God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Theistic philosophers have long held that the concept of God is that of the greatest conceivable being (GCB.”

With that statement you are defining who God is and from there you make an “airtight” argument that is a circle that takes you back to your definition.
One cannot start by defining who God is.

It is not correct that all theistic philosophers agree that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. There are great minds from the past and present who argue otherwise. Some are very educated and sincere Christians.

It is conceivable that this entire universe could have been created by One who is not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. You believe and I believe that is not the case, however it is conceivable.

There is a great deal of evidence that God is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, however critics make the argument that “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why did He not make a universe that contains no evil?” That, of course, is a question that takes books to explain, however, it revolves around the question of why we all experience evil. An absolutely fascinating question that I have tried to understand for many years.

I am writing this quickly after reading your post and will think about all this some more and try to further my response.

Jason,
I don’t know if you missed my post or if you are ignoring it, but I would challenge the concept that the GCB could not sin. I am not saying the GCB created sin, nor disagreeing He is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I am simply stating that the GCB would not sin, rather than could not sin, because the opportunity and possibility to sin would have been present in the space and time of His creation (not before the beginning of or, nor the period of time that there was no corruption, nor after the end of a reconciled creation, but during the space and time of it it’s corruption). If the GCB became part of His own creation while it suffered corruption then He too would have been subjected to the same forces of corruption inherit in His creation during the time it was suffering corruption.
AM I wrong?

One quick relevant point: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why did He not make a universe that contains no evil?”

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. (Genesis 1:31-2:1)

Kevin:
I am not angry nor am I the angry type; certainly no angrier than Jesus when he issued the “woe to you” indictment of religious purveyors. Now you said this

“Either all scripture is to believed upon or none is to be believed. Leo cannot use one scripture as proof of his belief and deny another scripture.”

But I don’t deny scripture; I deny most interpretations of scripture which is why I offered the Curse of Ham to show you how so many Christians interpret scripture at the literal level. And in this case I do not deny that Ham had an affair with his father’s nakedness; that is, incest that produced the offspring Canaan, from that incestuous relationship. So I don’t deny the scripture I simply interpret it more perfectly than most Christians in that I do not interpret scripture with any supernatural or paranormal inference whatever.

For this reason the resurrection did not mean that Jesus was raised from the dead because he was not dead no more dead than Lazarus was or the young man that fell off the stairs and was picked iup with the exclamation that he was still alive!

Now as to Faith:

That you with all mankind were so created that the presence of the creator in the creature is indispensable to your humanity. It’s that proposition, the divine logic, of which is indispensable to your humanity. That is what Christians call God based on the ancients but that is not what I call god because there is nothing supernatural about it, it is THE WAY IT IS and that is the divine logic that is indispensable to your humanity in conjunction with, the brain, conjunction memory, conjunction bundles of experiences so that we by practice can be raised up to know the difference between what is right and wrong and choose the good. Touching a hot stove is one of those experiences that one has to experience to gain knowledge, the proof is in the taste and the adherence is in the knowledge.

There are countless converted men and women who can say I made my decision for Jesus. And now they read the bible, memorize some verses, set it to music, buy a guitar, train choirs but quite frankly, never been for a ride. This was like the Scribes and the Pharisees. The Lord Jesus said to them: “You search the scriptures.” In the original it’s the imperative. Or rather it’s a categorical statement of fact, not just the imperative. He didn’t say “search the scriptures”, he said, “You search the scriptures” because he knew they did. This was their stock in trade; this was their text book.

“You search the scriptures; in them you think you have eternal life.”

There’s no eternal life to be found in the bible. I believe the bible from cover to cover, I believe it to be divinely inspired, I believe it is authored by the holy ghost. But there’s no eternal life to be found in the bible. Said the Lord Jesus:

“These scriptures are they that testify of me and you will not come to me that you might have life.” So you’ve got a bible you study and you flatter yourself on your biblical scholarship. You derive from it your theological and philosophical propositions but you examine that book without any revelation of the one who authored it and you fail to recognize the one of whom it testifies and because you will not come to me, that in me you might have that life that only I can give you, you’ve got a dead bible and a dead religion and it won’t be long before you have a dead Christ because you see if you study the bible long enough without coming to the one of whom it speaks you’ll crucify him. And then you’ll say,

“We buried him in our generation”.

Said the Lord Jesus, your word is truth. It contains those vital principles that must govern man’s relationship……

That’s why the next principle is very obvious. You’ll find it in Hebrews 11, verse 6. Without faith, it is impossible to please or perform the Divine Logic. Your supreme criterion that makes you man from Divine logic’s point of view, that you please Divine Logic but without faith it is impossible to please what you were born with. So faith isn’t optional, faith isn’t a matter of taste, faith isn’t up for grabs, faith is a disposition, the mind that was in Christ Jesus. Let this mind be in you that was in Christ, Jesus who let Divine Logic do it this Divine Logic was what Jesus referred to over and over again as the Father within; the “Father in I” and “I in the Father”.

That’s why it’s absolutely imperative that you understand the nature of faith.

And very few Christians understand the nature of faith. Because we’re constantly being brainwashed into the idea that the more you are in the rat race, the more you rush around doing things for their supernatural God the more you’re demonstrating your faith in the paranormal God; diametrically opposed to the truth. The more you try to do for the supernatural the more you’re demonstrating, not your faith in paranormal, but your faith in yourself.

Faith is a disposition that invokes the activity of a second party; it brings somebody, something, into action on your behalf. You’re exercising faith at this moment in the seat that supports your weight.

What’s your faith doing for that seat? Nothing! Except let it be a bench, on your behalf. It isn’t your faith that supporting your weight, it’s the chair. I believe in chairs; I’m very orthodox about chairs. I could preach for twenty minutes right now about a chair and everything I’d say would be true but I’m not exercising faith in one single chair in this building because you cannot exercise faith standing up or kneeling down, you can only exercise faith sitting down. And the moment I sit in a chair I immediately rest upon it my weight and let it get into action to demonstrate that it is strong enough to support that weight. So you don’t congratulate my faith you congratulate the chair.

If you want your appendix out you choose a surgeon you can trust. And you go to the hospital on the appointed occasion; how do you demonstrate your faith in the surgeon? Who gets on the job? Who takes the tools? Do you carve him up or does he carve you up? When you put your faith in the surgeon, he gets into action.

When I get on board a plane and fly, my faith does nothing for the pilot, nothing for the airline, nothing for ground crew, nothing for radar; my faith simply lets all the resources of that airline, including the pilot, be mobilized on my behalf to get me from Newark, New Jersey, To London, England. My faith lets somebody else get into action.

That’s why, never congratulate a man on his faith, that’s sheer stupidity. Faith never made a man great. Faith is simply that disposition that allows Divine Logic to be as big as Father is, in a man, that’s all. Congratulate Him. The one who’s BE-ing.

Faith is like the clutch on a gear shift continental sports car. You could put your foot on the gas, rev the engine until every last window in the district is vibrating with the noise and the whole city lost in a cloud of dust. But if you don’t let the clutch out where will you be when you take your foot off the gas and the dust has settled? Exactly where you started! Because all the clutch does is relate the engine and the power under the hood to the wheels on the road. But the clutch doesn’t drive the car. Can you imagine a kid with his friend, open sports car, zooming down the road, nobody looking, 30, 50, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 miles an hour, wind streaming through his hair and he turns to his friend and says man….man..he says, what a clutch! Well you’d say don’t be so stupid. You’d say Man…what an engine!. All the clutch is doing is letting the engine be an engine.

And all that faith does in terms of your relationship to Jesus Christ is to allow him to move redemptively into your experience and reconcile you to the Father Divine Logic within you. If you don’t put your trust in Christ who revolutionized religion to show us the Divine Principle within us, he’s still the redeemer but you won’t know it.

That doesn’t prove you’re smart. That just exposes your ignorance.

Faith.

And of course the more confident you are in the object of your faith, the more unconscious you are of the faith you are exercising in that object. That’s why you didn’t examine the chair before you sat in it. You’ve become confident and therefore you’re unconscious. And if you’re worried about your faith in Jesus Christ, there’s one cure: get acquainted.

That’s where I AM coming from, not where Naz says I AM coming from because I have told him the same thing before but he interprets it by his own logic and not the Divine Logic I just explained and that is how he and most Christians interpret bible scriptures, with supernatural logic and literal understanding so limited as to thwart the message they erroneously purport to know.

If you consider that I AM a devil’s advocate so be it; at least now you know a piece of truth from where I sit. It is a different chair but maybe others need to sit in it too, Jesus did, and he also, was referred to as a (dare)devil:

John 10:19 Again the Jews were divided because of his words. 20 Many of them were saying, “He has a devil and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?”

Frank,
Your point is relevant if man is the author of the Bible because it would be written from a man’s point of view. Since the story is told in the past tense, we would understand that all that was created and made contained evil. Fortunately, man is not the author of the Bible, God is. Like all authors, the book is written from the author’s point of view. This is a major difference as to how He sees things and we see things. He sees His work was finished before the foundation of the world. He sees Jesus Christ as the firstborn over all creation. He sees the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world. He declares the end from the beginning. In fact, in a mystery, He declared Jesus Christ in the very first verse of scripture. (more on this later).
If we look at the story of creation from God’s lenses, we can understand what He sees as if it already happened, has yet to be fulfilled in the fullness of time from man’s point of view.

For example, Gen 1: 1 says God made the heavens and the earth. There is no timetable given, nor a restriction to anything else. No mention of a creation that became corrupted by sin. From man’s view, it seems to mean the current heaven and earth, but from God’s view it would include the current heavens and earth that are passing away, and the new heavens and new earth that He reconciled incorruptible to Himself (free from sin and evil) before He rested on the seventh day (the day without end, the eternal day of God’s rest; The Sabbath). FYI: From man’s view God has already entered this rest and left us with the existence for evil, but from God’s view, man cannot see that God’s rest hasn’t come in the fullness of time (John 5:17). God is still working within the space and time of His creation to restore it.

The same view is in sight regarding the creation of man. You may not realize it, but Gen 1:26 is the first promise God made toward man and Gen 1: 27 says He kept that promise. There is no mention of the fall of man, yet He confirmed that He was pleased by the end of the day that man was made complete in His own image and according to His likeness (Gen 1:31). We also know, He no longer had any work to do for His creation was complete (Gen 2:1). From man’s view, it seems His creation is complete with the existence of sin because the story is told in the past tense. Again, from God’s view, He has not finished His work in the fullness of time (John 5:17). Jesus explained that His Father had not ever stopped working and He too was working. The work being done was reconciling all things to Himself in heaven and on earth. Until this work is done, the sixth day of creation cannot come to an end. So, once again, we see from man’s view that the sixth day of creation is past, but according to God’s viewpoint, it has not yet come to pass in the fullness of time. When it does, man will rest with God on the seventh day of His creation because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. For this reason, the son of man; Jesus Christ, is the Lord of the Sabbath, the Lord of eternity! (Mark 2:27).

If you need further proof to what I am saying is true, please look at the creation of man. God made man in His own image and according to His likeness. We must ask ourselves; when was God ever like us? Meaning, when was His invisible spirit in a sinless body of flesh and blood just like our invisible spirit resides in a body of flesh and blood. If we were originally made in His own sinless image and according to His own likeness, then He too must have had a sinless temple of body of flesh and blood. The answer is in the fullness of time (several thousand years after He made Adam and Eve), He was born of a woman in flesh and blood; Jesus Christ. (From God’s viewpoint, He made us like Him in the beginning, but from our view we could not see it until the fullness of time. The next question is, when will we be made in the sinless image and likeness of God? The answer is in the end at the resurrection. We will be transformed into the sinless glory of Jesus Christ, raised incorruptible and made complete with a glorified body of spirit and flesh just as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So, from God’s viewpoint, by the end of the sixth day of His creation, God made a universe (and more) that contains no evil. (Isa 65:17 “ “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind”). The only relevant view is His and He has it all under His control!

He did it in the beginning and He did it in the end. He did it in Jesus CHrist, who is the beginning and the end!!!

Frankly, I cannot read any further than your claim that Jesus did not die. You lost all credibility with that statement. The facts are so overwhelming that Jesus died on the cross that I don’t even care to spell them out.

I will say this, if you can interpret Acts 2:23 to be stating something other than the physical death of Jesus Christ, whereby His blood was poured out forever from His earthly body, then I could agree your interpretation of this scripture differs from most people.

You, however, might be surprised to find out that you interpret the scriptures exactly the same as many people do. That is, you interpret them to fit or prove what you already believe instead of having a Berean spirit and searching them to see what is true see Acts 4.

For now, I can’t appreciate much of what you wrote. You simply lack credibility of somebody that is sincere in seeking out the truth.

Scripture is inspired by God thus inerrant [2 Timothy 3:15-17; Mark 12:24; Luke 24:27, 32, 45; Acts 17:11, 18:24, 28; Romans 15:4]. It was the creature, NOT the Creator who introduced evil into creation. God made Adam perfect [Genesis 1:28]. But by Adam’s falling to temptation he lost God’s blessing and impacted all creation. Still, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13) YAHWEH YIREH: Philippians 4:19.

Many, O YHWH my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. (Psalms 40:5)

It is impossible to know “god’s” viewpoint.
It is impossible to see through “god” lenses.
It is only possible to know viewpoints and to see through lenses as a human.

Genesis was authored by Moses, who also authored the Commandments and the Laws; the Torah, the First 5 books of the bible. The Judiciary was authored by Jerome, Moses’ Father in Law.

Everything written in every Holy Book was authored by Man, not Zeus, not Apollo, not Shiva, Brahma, Raa, Yahweh or Mahway. The violence and evil, death, atrocities and affliction could only have been authored by Man.

AM I human? I AM.

Study we call Mythology. BUT JUST IN CASE YOU ARE SERIOUS about your last comment that there is a God, consider these words to the wise and not so wise alike.
WHAT IS AN AXIOM?
A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer

Now you can come up with many excuses why God is not self evident: testing us, to see who really loves him, prove us through suffering; but, in offering excuses, you deny reality, reason, logic, knowledge.

Religion is Pregnant with assumptions:

1st.If there was a God it would be self evident,

2nd.Religions would not have to proselytize; and,

3rd.There would not be a fractured human race, each faction promoting their own personal God Brand and Messenger and making extravagant claims of miracles,

Why would anyone presume to think that a Creator needs to be defended by the Creature? Or that wants the creature to grovel like men demand of others, to kiss their feet and cater to their every whim. That’s what man does.

Ego created Religion, Church, Prophet and God. The audacity of arrogant clergy perpetuate hoax, myth and used magic to represent true miracles as clearly stated in Exodus by the story of Moses, Aaron and Pharoah. Religions, their proxies. minions and proselytes perpetuate supernatural god myth hoaxes.

As Naz and his Congregation say:

“Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddd……..”

I watch the calamity they dwell on, looking somewhere up in the northern sky or somewhere else in the cosmos for the Kingdom. Jesus told everybody exactly where the Kingdom is and it’s in black and white in the Bible conveniently ignored by the Clergy and never read by Christians Does it take a non Christian to tell you where that is? HUH?
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

So much for the waiting on the Second Coming. If you are not it, you already missed it!

Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein

Frank,
We agree it was the creature that introduced evil into creation, not the Creator. The creature that introduced it was Satan, not man. In fact, by the time God made man and placed him in the Garden of Eden sin had already entered the creation of God. This is evidenced by the fact that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden is a type and shadow of heaven. The only way the tree of knowledge of good and evil could have been there is if heaven had already had knowledge of sin. If there was no knowledge of sin, the tree could not have existed. I am not saying there was sin residing in heaven, I am saying the knowledge of it was there. The only way the knowledge of sin could be in heaven is if sin had entered creation.

We don’t know when Satan and a third of the angels sinned against God. We only know it was before God gave the command to Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Kevin, yes, this is sound theology. Sin is like a parasite that was introduced by Satan.
It is interesting to think about the fact that Satan and the demons have no chance at redemption whereas Man does.

As for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there are still too many Christians eating from this tree today.

Naz,
I am glad you like it. There is much more to comment about creation. I believe Genesis is the most important book in the Bible because if you understand the mysteries of God hidden in Genesis it is impossible to not know who God is; He is Jesus Christ. There is no other God.

Most Biblical scholars I’ve spoken to do not understand how much the gospel of God is preached from the very first verse in Genesis and throughout the first three chapters, therefore they don’t study it, because they don’t believe there is anything in Genesis that effects our salvation. I believe there could be nothing further from the truth. How can one be saved that doesn’t know God? (2 Thess 1:7-9). Genesis lays the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ from the very first verse!

Jesus said no one can come to the Father except through me (John 14:6). Why is that? There are several scriptures to explain it, but Gen 1:1 explains it clearly that if you understand the scripture, you will never look for God outside of Christ. I would be glad to explain this if to you if you want me to.

You have a paranormal spirit, a barrier spirit against Jesus’ teachings, no knowledge but tons of belief. Man has a natural design you have a supernatural spirit that blocks all truth and common sense.

You do err greatly with your paranormal barrier by accepting the Ancients who used magic tricks and called them miracles

The nature of man is to eat of the tree of good and evil; it is impossible for man to do otherwise, man is designed that way.

You are the standard bearer for magic trick as miracles and bereft of any message of Jesus. What you state is no less than Pharisaical; they also believe in the resurrection of the dead.

If Satan and a third of the angels sinned against God please tell me how the number of angels were in that one third group? If you cannot tell me it’s because it is not written which proves it is merely metaphorical but you can’t see it or admit it.

You do know plenty about the unknowable however; in fact, you are an expert in the unknowable, most dogma-oriented believers are.

If my user name was Jealous would you think that was blasphemous because that is one of the biblical names of your supernatural God?

Leo,
If Leo is your name, you mock our God and you do it knowingly. It’s disrespectful to those that believe.

You have no mastery over anything scriptural, just an antagonistic spirit wanting to be heard. If you want to debate the scripture, do it.

Let’s start with your claim Jesus did not die. Explain your interpretation of Acts 2:23 “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death”.

Kevin: You said:
“Naz, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb 9:22).”

But you are cherry picking and that quote is false because it does not stand alone.
That is a bullish quote from someone who does not understand the bible. The scripture is talking about the old law, that was the Law of Moses but Jesus debunked the Law just as he debunked the Sabbath and ritualisms and offerings including the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. And that quote goes before Hebrews in Psalms:

Here is what the author of Hebrews wrote:

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, “Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,” as it is written of me in the roll of the book.’ When he said above, ‘Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings’ (these are offered according to the law), then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” Hebrews 10:5-10

When we read the particular Psalm that the author quoted we do find that there is indeed a variant reading:

“Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then I said, ‘Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.’” Psalm 40:6-8

Sacrifices, offerings and the sin offering of shedding of blood was debunked and has no meaning for Jesus. You are false in your presumed academia.

“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer.

“Then I said” verse 7, “Lo here I am come to do your will oh God, to fulfill what is written of me in the volume of the book. The volume of what book? Well the Old Testament Scriptures. Thank you Father for the body that you prepared for me to offer.

The Apostles/Disciples never knew much about Jesus and most of what they wrote was speculative so debating about what scripture Acts 2:23 means, is nothing that would determine what really happened after the cross because they too were indoctrinated by the Pharisees and the religious culture of the day which was primarily, as it still is today laced with the dogma of supernaturalism and miraculous suspension of the Laws of the Physics. Nor did Jesus entrust himself to many people including his disciples and even members of his own family.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

His brothers for example asked Jesus if he was going to the Feast of the Tabernacle and Jesus had to lie to them by saying he was not going to the Festival because he did not trust them not to reveal his whereabouts after he knew that the Jews had decreed that if any man knew the whereabouts of Jesus they were bound to turn him in to the authorities and this, after he knew the Jews were planning to kill him. So when his brothers asked him if he was going to the festival he said no. But then after his loud mouthed brothers who wanted Jesus to make himself known so they could glow in the braggadocio scene they were willing to create at the Festival for their own ego glory by the association, but left the brothers left for the Festival, Jesus disguised himself and went to the Festival in secret.

You see Christians claim they know Jesus in the supernatural but most do not know Jesus as a normal human person of great common sense, a child, teenager & young adult learning his trade at the bench and making his way into his chosen career. And when after his meeting with his cousin John the Baptist Jesus retreated into the desert, not to be tempted by the devil but to meditate about how he would layout the campaign to pursue his mission.

While it is thought that Luke wrote Acts Paul who wrote some of the books and letters in the New Testament never knew or never met Jesus himself; it isn’t even clear what books in the Acts that Paul actually wrote.

However it is evident to me that you cannot debate scripture if you cannot understand or refuse to accept metaphorical passages, idioms and other common sayings of language you will be at a disadvantage by being stuck in the literal meaning of words and niggle over prepositions that seem to support supernatural skew. Like “walking on water” as opposed to “walking in water”.

So let’s begin by identifying the key players as points of reference involved with the pre-crucifixion who would have been “in the know” and in whom Jesus entrusted himself to plan the crucifixion and to rely on, in the post-crucifixion for what would be demanded of them.

The key players were not any of the regular disciples from his following. If we can establish this we can discuss what happened accordingly beginning with his mission after meeting cousin John before the meditation retreat in the desert.

Leo,
Quote “But I don’t deny scripture; I deny most interpretations of scripture…Unquote”
Quote “The Apostles/Disciples never knew much about Jesus and most of what they wrote was speculative so debating about what scripture Acts 2:23 means, is nothing that would determine what really happened after the cross . . . ” Unquote

These are your words. After stating you don’t deny scripture, you immediately denied the majority of the New Testament scripture. Furthermore, by denying the gospel of Jesus Christ, you have denied most of the Old Testament scripture because the OT scriptures preached the gospel of Christ beginning in Genesis. The gospel of Jesus Christ is His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension . . . You have denied all of it.

What I said to you stands; you study the scripture to prove what you already believe. When the scripture are at odds with your belief system, you deny them outright and as in the example above, you are completely nonsensical in your denial. There’s nothing more to discuss.

KS:
The scriptures testify about the crucifixion, entombment, escape from entombment, healing process and exit from the land of the insane that you call the ascension because the entourage disappeared over the horizon in a cloud of desert dust. The supernatural bent is what believers love to use because it is impossible to replicate and you believe in the impossible, exactly why the religious ancients have you in thrall. Scripture also says Matt 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;…

Now I’m not saying that all religious people are psychopaths and psychotics but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker, and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic.

The only thing that guides you about Jesus is religious insanity:
that he died,
he was buried
he rose from the dead and
rose up into heavenly sky

all outlandish claims and yet that’s the only thing that empowers you based on the non-knowledge by the religious ancients who killed their children for their god of choice, sprinkled blood of goats onto the congregation for the remission of their sins(how smart is that) and yet you refuse to accept that Jesus debunked the Laws of the Ancients as false and laced with deceit. Matt 23

You are not empowerment because of the Life of Jesus, his message of forgiveness and common sense, love and compassion but the foolhardy nonsense of the paranormal Hollywood fiction that you have had 2000 years to demonstrate by replication and you JUST CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. The only person who parted the waters is Cecil B DeMille in the Ten Commandments.

Of all the things you lost don’t you miss your mind the most? And yet you can’t accept that you live a wasted life being duped by people who could describe the so called mightiest OMNI entity in the Cosmos, God, before they knew discovered knowledge with the invention of the wheel!

Ancient Greek mankind, trying to explain certain metaphysical phenomena and anxieties, invented amazing myths concerning the Cosmogony (the creation of the World) and the Theogony (the birth of the Gods).

Thus, the ancient Greek people created their own splendid, yet human-like world of gods, justifying the various abstract significances like Love, Birth or Death.

And the ancestors believed the myths just like you.

Look at planet names today: The Romans gave the Greek pantheon a major makeover and fancy Latin names. The major deities were built up into the Planet Suite: MARS, VENUS, JUPITER, etc.. Your ancestors believed in their Gods too and where are they now, in the Casinos still making money for Bingo the Money God of Earth where 666 will end up being with their horses and dragons and other dream character concepts of Revelation.

“You study the scriptures to prove what you already believe. When the scripture are at odds with your belief system” you twist them to suit the supernatural model of your ancestors, the ancients the Scribes and the Pharisees. There are only a few gods left and soon they will be abandoned on the altar as knowledge supplants the dysfunctional reptilian brains of belief and the next generation of children will laugh at the weird mythology traditions of men addicted to the Gods who withered away waiting for the Second Coming.

May evolution open your higher brain some day because the one that operates in you now has been hijacked by the drug of Absolute Certainty.

In post # 33 I wrote, “God made Adam perfect [Genesis 1:28]. But by Adam’s falling to temptation he lost God’s blessing and impacted all creation.” Take note: Then to Adam He [God] said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’, Cursed is the ground because of you; in sorrow you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19) Adam by his disobedience to God lost dominion of the earth and rule over every living thing that moves on it to the Adversary/Satan. He brought sorrow upon himself and all his descendants [Romans 5:12-19]: “So then as through one transgression [Adam’s disobedience] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [Messiah’s Atonement] there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19), and God’s curse upon creation [Romans 8:20-22].

The Adversary’s sin of pride is chronicled in Isaiah 14:3-27 and Ezekiel 28:11-19.

the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

Frank,
Have you ever noticed that in the beginning God first created everything in a mortal condition (all creation being subject to death) and in the end God reconciled everything to Himself in making His creation immortal. Even the firstborn over all creation (who created all things-Col 1:16) was subjected to death in His own creation (because He entered it after was corrupted by sin). In fact He (Jesus Christ) died, but fortunately He was God and He is also the firstborn of the dead (Col 1:18), raised in glory, incorruptible forever and ever, and reconciled all things to Himself by the blood of His cross, both in heaven and on earth (Col 1:20)
(All that is His [belongs to Him], in the new Heaven or in the new Earth, is no longer subject to death)? In the end, sin and death is no longer remembered, because in the end it is not part of God’s creation see (Isa 65:17), for God did not create sin and death!!!

Hidden within the first verse of the Bible is God’s declaration of Jesus Christ and all that He created and made. God being the author of the Bible would, like all authors, wrote it according to His view, not our view. He is like no other for He is before all things and beyond all things, His view, therefore includes the past, present, and future. From God’s view Gen 1:1 is actually saying God created the Heaven and the earth; the heaven and earth that passed away and the new heaven and new earth that shall never pass away.

Before God declared He created the heaven ands the earth, in a mystery, He declared who created it. Hidden within the first three words of scripture is God’s declaration of Jesus Christ. It’s so awesome that the mystery that was hidden from the ancient times; Jesus Christ, was who and what God declared first when His written Word says “In the beginning”. We know this is true because Col 1:18 declare Jesus Christ is “the beginning”, meaning He is the beginning of God’s creation. Christ Himself declares He “is the beginning of God’s creation (Rev 3:14) “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:”. With this understanding and revelation, we can view Gen1:1 to say; In Jesus Christ (aka the beginning), God created the heavens and earth (firstly, heavens and earth that passed away and lastly, the new heavens and new earth that last forever; the Lord’s Sabbath. I believe this is what Isa 48:9-10 really means when He says to remember the former things long past, there is no one like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning . . . (refers to Gen 1:1 because when God declared the beginning in Gen 1; 1; Jesus Christ” it also means to declare the End; Jesus Christ, because He is both, if you declare one, you are declaring the other. The scriptures are clear that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. That which God declares (in a mystery) in the beginning is also that which God declares (in revelation of Jesus Christ) in the end. Jesus Christ is the Lord God of the OT and the Lord God of the NT. Why can no one go to the father except through Christ (John 14:6), because the Father has always been in Christ!!! This is the first thing God declares in His word is His location: Gen 1:1 (In Jesus Christ, God (Elohim, meaning all that He is) created the heavens and the earth. God, in all His fullmess, was in Christ before He ever uttered a word in His creation. Again, God, in all that He is or to put it in NT terms, in all His fullness, was in Christ before He said “Let there be Light” (Col 1:19, 16, Col 2:9). It’s no wonder why Jesus said (John 14:6) “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”.

I have much more to say about this and other hidden aspects of the scriptures preaching the Gospel of Christ in a mystery (Rom 16:25) beginning in Gen 1 (especially Gen 1:26-27, 31, and Gen 2:1-4).

It’s interesting to me that you quoted Col 2: 10-15 without comments. I am in the process of writing a lesson on water baptism. Many people believe water baptism is a work of man, not God, but Col 2:8-12 challenges this concept. Paul describes water baptism as a work of God that we put our faith in that while we are dead in our sins in the uncircumcision of our flesh as we are buried with Christ in the watery grave of baptism, we become alive in being raised up with Him from the watery grave of baptism.

This is an important issue to keep an open mind towards. If water baptism is a work of man, it has no influence on a believers salvation, but if it is a work of God, then it is how God imparts His righteousness on our body of flesh. If we are born again in the flesh by water baptism into the body of Christ through faith in the working of God, then water baptism is an extremely important part of the born again experience of the believer John 3:3-8.

If it’s a work of God that provides forgiveness of the repented believer’s sin, then it needs to be believed upon and not denied as His work. We certainly don’t want to be found in error claiming to do a work of man when its God’s work being done, thereby falling errantly and unknowingly into unbelief, On the other hand, we don’t want to be in error claiming a work of God is being done when it is only a work of man.

As I said earlier, this is a work in progress, but I am very excited about it and would like to share it with you soon.

Frank,
I re-read my post #51 and would like to clarify the definition of the word for God used throughout Gen 1 which is “Elohim”. By definition this word means the “one true God of Israel, in all that He is”. This means that includes the Father, Son, and Hoy Spirit and all that we know and all that we don’t know, including all that is visible and all that is invisible.

With the understanding that God declared Jesus Christ with the very first words of scripture in a mystery “in the beginning” aka Jesus Christ, the we can see that “all that God is was in Christ before He ever began to speak creation into existence. For this reason we should understand, the Father cannot be found outside of Christ. While they remain distinct from the other, they are inseparable.

OMG, convoluted narratives that encompasses all manner of digressions. As a coil follows the spiral and the twist chases the whorl so the voluted agrees with the convoluted.

We are past masters at complicating the issue when in point of fact, it is what it is, as plain as a rose is a flower by any other name is the nose on your face! Trying to substitute Jesus for other words in the language is an exercise in complexity that does not exist: Are there different definitions? In biblical academia one can find the essence of redundancy that strives to cut and dice every nigglable aspect of niggling a niggler can niggle over for Christian wiggle room.

Well is the definition of language?…….”Jesus”. One has to be a boa constrictor to swallow the sop of Christianspeake being thrown around today.

Kevin Schwartz:
You do greatly err, Jesus is not some DaVinci code or Hebrew numerology nor is he some kind of mark that will appear on the forehead or in your right hand, which themselves are metaphorical. Jesus is being used like a football to kick around the bible pages to prove that he is the definition of every word in the book. It’s preposterous it’s hardly any wonder that secular people laugh at your mockery attempts to prove you’ve got a bible you study and you can flatter yourself on your biblical scholarship.

What a trap to be in thrall to the tyranny of religion. Jesus, in so many words throughout his whole life long mission said to the downtrodden of religious indoctrination:
“THE DEVILISH IRONY:
consists in the fact that ‘divine judgment’ and ‘damnation’ are themselves the inventions of religion: religion creates and exquisitely perfects the fear, then cynically declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it. And yet we are invited to credit religion as the source of true freedom? It is a laughable claim, a disgraceful claim, a claim that makes a mockery of language as well as of truth and of human dignity.

TRUE FREEDOM:
requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes.”

The Lord Jesus said, I’m free. I’m free. Because in the sinlessness of my humanity I’ve entered into no contract, I have submitted myself to no obligation, I have indebted myself to nobody in such a way that I could not at all times do only exclusively what pleases the Divine Logic, my Father. That’s freedom. You are free ladies and gentlemen when you have entered into no contract, indebted yourself to nobody, or any organization or denominational group, you’ve entered into no alliance that would make it at anytime impossible for you to do other than please him, then you’re free. Free. That’s perfect freedom.

Kevin:
With all due respect. Your knowledge of Jesus is slim to none. Your theory about Genesis is less now than it was when Moses wrote the book since you had no idea about the real reason for the Curse of Ham.

In addition Moses wrote the Book of Genesis from elder accounts handed down over thousands of generations and so speculated about the fiction he heard from stories of how the cosmos, the earth and life was created from the myriad of mythologies already undergoing changes in the world as the Gods cropped up and passed away only to be replaced by other gods such as the One Lump God that Abraham devised and for whom he was prepared to slaughter his boy child based on a night of drug induced psychotic trances and drunkedness when he hallucinated about God telling him to kill his son Isaac.

What I discovered would not make most religious people happy: in that the Muslim, Christian and Judaist religions all have a common ancestor; it was Abraham. These three religions are all stems of Abraham’s sons. And the followers of the stems have been and still are, killing each other because of the Drug of Absolute Certainty. I decided that if this is how people honor their supernatural God then I wanted no part of it. I have carried this with me all my life. It has also made me resentful and untrusting, an atheist, a skeptic of the clergy and a follower of the only true person I can ID with, Jesus of Galilee who was not content like everybody else sitting on their fannies complaining about what should be and what could be; he decided the Mission fell to him to lift the downtrodden out of the tyranny of age-old religious supernatural nonsense of deceit and reveal the truth about how humanity ought to function and so he picked up the mantle knowing that he was going to be cursed and criticized and condemned for testifying about the religious world that its works were evil.

You on the other hand want to niggle over prepositions and language and argue semantics as though you knew what you were talking about but you don’t even understand the task that fell to Jesus to accomplish that would revolutionize the way men thought about their humanity. And just look at how long it has taken to arrive at this point in time with the wars and weapon advancement for the killing machine of the people still all about the religious insanity of Absolute Certainty and so many are still so much in the dark it would be laughable if the calamity of the human race was not so hideous in the way it treats their fellow man who disagrees with them. It’s the same old ego and pride that has always plagued humanity because of religion, and my god is better than your god because my god is the true god and his messenger is the true messenger and my church is better than your church because we are more righteous and you are more backward and more evil than we are.

It comes through in the writings that well up from the treasures of the heart, the real you.

For anything about the bible you would not be a candidate source for observance or understanding because you haven’t taken the time to get acquainted with Jesus; you are too busy developing your own Absolute Certainty about your own masterful Theology. The age old splitting of the flock for greater pastures and dividing humanity as you go, not uniting because religion divides; religion does not unite because it cannot unite when you deal with the supernatural science fiction ideas religions are founded on when young men will run to their death defending the religion that will send them to it. And mothers will cry for their sons to come to their senses and the sons will kill their mothers for apostasy against the religion of Absolute Certainty they are killing and dying for.

Kevin, if you are referring the one about baptism, I think I have some different views on that. I don’t believe baptism is a “work of God” in the sense that there is some mysterious thing that God does when one gets dunked. If that is the case then baptism would be essential for salvation which we know it is not since we are saved by the grace of God through Christ alone and not any work done by ourselves.

I think baptism is something we do that is symbolic of what Christ has done in taking our sins away and uniting us with Him spiritually. It should not be commanded or forced on any one, but the believer should look to it as a symbolic outward gesture of what Christ has done inside. Moreover, baptism could be looked upon as a “birth day” as we celebrate being born again ! Yes, Christians should be baptized in water and why wouldn’t they after they have learned what Jesus has done for them. It’s time to celebrate !

As for Colossians 2:8-12, baptism is used figuratively in the same way circumcision is used. We were not circumcised when we were born again, at least I wasn’t 🙂 So from the context we must be careful not to read too much into the passage. The essence and reality is Christ and His finished work. We are the recipients of God’s grace. The outward works are symbolic of a spiritual reality.

I don’t believe that John 3 is talking about baptism as being born of water. If you read the context, being born of water is natural birth. There is no indication of water baptism in this passage at all. To imply so is reading too much into the passage in my opinion. Forgiveness of sins does not come by water but by blood. Without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness.

Paul said he was sent to preach the gospel and not to baptize. Surely if baptism had some mystical significance then surely Paul would have preached baptism, yet he did not. The gospel is about the finished work of Jesus and what He did so that we could be saved. When you start adding baptism and/or other works to salvation you start down a slippery slope that eventually leads to law based theology and falling from grace.

I am working on a study that addresses the question: Is NT water baptism a work of God or a work of man? The study will address the baptism of John and the baptism of disciples of Jesus. I am not ready to present it because it’s not yet complete.

I agree with your take on it in principle. I don’t have any real objections or view point that would necessarily contradict or be in essence any different that what you are saying about Jesus and the beginning.

Let me summarize my current understanding of Genesis 1 in my own words.

When the scripture says that Jesus is the beginning of God’s creation, I take this to mean He is the first to resurrect from the dead and those that follow (us) will be resurrected in like manner to continue God’s creation.

Regarding Jesus being the beginning, I understand your point. My take is that since God is timeless, He already foresaw Christ even from the beginning when the universe was created. As for Genesis 1 specifically, in context it is talking about the beginning of the earthly creation when God made the world and Man etc….Chronologically, God did not become incarnate yet but from God’s point of view outside of chronological time, Jesus Christ was already there. Kind of a mind bender to think about that and it is difficult to understand.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

These verses in Collossians basically tell us that Jesus Christ is Almighty God Himself. So in that respect what you say about Jesus being the beginning is valid although, again in context, I don’t think that is what Genesis is trying to convey. But that’s fine because Collossians explains it to us anyway.

I appreciate your thoughts but just be careful not to read too much into passages all the time. Yes there are some mysterious things that we may not understand until we reach the other side, but if I take this approach to all of scripture I can come up with some pretty whacked out ideas if I’m not careful. I don’t say this to discourage you but to encourage you to continue to study remembering that context is very important when reading scripture.

Matthew 6:15
But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins. … But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours. … Here is a promise, If you forgive, your heavenly Father will also forgive. We must …

Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father …
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

EVERYBODY HAS THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS; what’s with the shedding of blood to get forgiveness thing?

That was religious ritual law that meant nothing then and means nothing now as Jesus plain says sacrifice and offering and sin offerings you have not desire nor required, Father. That very phrase you quoted is merely referencing about the Old Law that went out the door long long ago even as far back as Psalms.

Respecting baptism: there are two sorts. One which we are commanded by Messiah to apply to those we have made disciples through repentance and belief in His gospel by our obedience to the Great Commission [Matthew 28:19-20]. And another which is performed by Messiah Himself with fire and the Holy Spirit upon us sinners [Matthew 3:11] to circumcise our regenerated hearts and place His Law upon them and bring us to Salvation [Ezekiel 36:26].

Each and every one of us is born spiritually dead to God being descended from Adam. We must be born from above through Divine election by the sanctification of God’s Spirit [Job 33:4; Romans 8:2], justification by Messiah’s Righteousness [Hebrews 11:7] to receive the promise of God’s glorification [Romans 5:1-2] in eternal life. This all comes about exclusively by Sovereign Divine Volition.

Randy,
Well said and your use of scripture is well placed. Thank you for sharing.

I want to clarify that I brought up water baptism specifically because I am preparing a study and your quote of Col 2:9-15 stirred me up a little bit.

The study is going to explore water baptism from the specific question of what type of work, if any, it is. Meaning, everyone seems to be in agreement that water baptism is a work, but many believe it is a work of man, not God and others believe it is a work of God, not man.

If it’s a work of man, then its importance and relevance has no effect on our salvation, but if it is a work of God, then it is extremely important because directly effects our salvation.

We all have our beliefs, some of them from teaching and preaching and others we receive by revelation from God. The tricky part is; what is true revelation and how do you share a true revelation with other people. After-all, revelation comes from God. He either grants it to us or doesn’t grant it to us (Matt 13:10-13).

I’m excited about this study because it will provoke thought that I hope people will follow the example of the Berean Jews and examine the scriptures to see if what is presented is true.

There are a lot of things we never think about or consider, but we probably should. For example, We know that man can do nothing to save himself, right? Yet, we must believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved. Who does the believing and obeying? Obviously, we do. So, if we need to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, but we cannot do anything to save ourselves, how could believing and obeying the gospel possibly save us? God cannot do this for us can He? It provokes thought doesn’t it?

There are too many of us Christians that simply accept what we have been taught without searching the scriptures to see if it is true. Not everything that is taught is true and some of the things that are being taught lead to damnation in ignorance without excuse. The message here is to study the scriptures to see what is true. (Acts 17:11, 2 Tim 3:15-17).

Your perspective will serve you well as you continue in your relationship with God. As you are learning for yourself we live in a fallen world during the age of deception. Scripture teaches, “Gird your loins.” Put on the helmet of Salvation [Isaiah 59:11-21; Ephesians 6:17-20; 1 Thessalonians 5:8-10] and always be ready to contend for the faith.

“As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says YHWH: “My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring,” says YHWH, “from now and forever.” (Isaiah 59:21)

The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (Psalms 119:160)

“There are a lot of things we never think about or consider, but we probably should. For example, We know that man can do nothing to save himself, right? Yet, we must believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved. Who does the believing and obeying? Obviously, we do. So, if we need to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, but we cannot do anything to save ourselves, how could believing and obeying the gospel possibly save us? God cannot do this for us can He? It provokes thought doesn’t it? ”

Kevin, it is good for us to keep asking questions like this above because that will lead us to a better and better understanding of God. After all Peter said that we need to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s what our task is now that we believe in Him and our saved.

One thing I would like to say is that our salvation is a finished work done by Christ and there is nothing we can add or take away from it. Be careful in your searching for understanding that scriptures are not twisted so that you come to wrong conclusions on what the source of our salvation is. By grace we are saved and by grace we live, not by law, not by rules and not by commandments. We are under the new covenant now and unlike the old, it is not based on our faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness.

As for your questions above, I agree with you in a sense in that it seems we need to “do” something to receive salvation. I can only say that when we truly believe the gospel we are obeying the gospel and receive this great salvation. It is a work in a sense but not a work of the law in the OT sense. James even said, faith without works is dead. The demons “believe” in Christ but we know they are not saved. When you believe and open the door to God, just like Rahab did, then you obeyed the gospel and are saved.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Again you speak wisely and I really do appreciate it. You have made an extremely important point and it is good for me to hear it. Thank you Naz.

I agree with you and understand the need to be careful to not twist scripture into something that is not there, nor twist scripture and take away something that is there. This situation already exists with some widely held teachings and beliefs throughout Christendom. There are doctrines and teachings that I previously believed because they were taught to me, but after examining the scriptures (with prayer always) I discovered they were errant teachings/doctrines. For this very reason alone, I would add to your word of caution for us to also be careful not to easily dismiss anything that goes against what we have been taught to believe, and have held a longtime belief in, by claiming the teaching is twisted because it goes against what we’ve been taught and believe. The scriptures don’t lie and the scriptures will prove what is true. If we dismiss something too easily based on what we already believe without examining the scriptures to see if it’s true, we may miss the truth. After all, we don’t need to look past the Pharisees and Sadducees as an example, of this for us, do we?

It is clear, we are in agreement with our mutual understanding that we are saved wholly by the grace of God. The scriptures preach the grace of God on the day Adam and Eve sinned; The scriptures, foreseeing seeing God’s grace in the atonement of Christ, first preached the gospel to Adam and Eve by covering them with the type and shadow of the atonement of Christ; the garments made for a covering of their nakedness (sin) provided by God from the skins of the sacrifice of the innocent animals (type and shadow of of the atoning work Christ) (Gen 3:21, Gal 3:27). The fig leaves could not hide their sin from the face of God (the type and shadow of man can do nothing to cover his own sins) (Gen 3:7). God’s grace saved man on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By the grace of God, He banished Adam and Eve from the garden because if they stayed in the garden of Eden they would have been able to eat from the Tree of Life and live forever in their fallen state (Gen 3:22-24).

By knowing God, however, it is through our faith in and obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ that we live (2 Thess 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17). Even though we are doing the believing and obeying, according to the scripture you quoted (John 6:29), it is not by our work that we believe and obey, it’s a work God does in us (John 6:29).

FYI: I never saw this scripture in this way before you quoted it. It’s so interesting how and when God opens our eyes to the scriptures. There is more to research of the Scriptures to be done, but John 6:29 explains that our believing is the work of God. If our believing is the work of God, then the obedience of faith that comes from it, is also the work of God.

John 6:29 seems to answer the question I put forth: if we need to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, but we cannot do anything to save ourselves, how could believing and obeying the gospel possibly save us? Our believing in Jesus CHrist is the work of God! I like it…alot!!!

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Messiah and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Messiah reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Messiah, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Messiah, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5: 18-21)

Just to be clear, that it is us as individuals that still choose to believe in God since it is “whosoever will”. I don’t believe in the Calvin predestination doctrine or that God is a master puppeteer that makes people believe. I’m sorry if I communicated this in any way.

My point was that the work of God is not the works of the law but believing in Jesus Christ. When we believe the message we are “obeying” the gospel. We are not to think obedience as a number of other things we must do in addition to faith. The only imperative for salvation is opening the door – believing in Christ. When we say that we are not “saved by works”, this means that we are not saved by our efforts and by our merits. It is all done by Jesus and we are simply receiving the free gift He is offering. There will be those that listen to the message and never respond by faith. Those people are not saved.

I didn’t take it that you believed in Calvin’s doctrine, nor do I believe it either. Sin entered the worlds through disobedience to God’s command and all of us who have heard the gospel have a choice to believe and obey the gospel of God or not. If you believe the gospel that was preached (Jesus died for our sins, rose from the grave on the third day, appeared to hundreds of witnesses and on the 40th day ascended into heaven…), then obeying it is something that one would do, the question then becomes what is it we need to be obey by faith?

There is no argument that man cannot be saved by his own works. The question I would ask you is this. Is your position that believing without repentance towards God or confessing Christ is obedience to the gospel just the same?

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances [the tradition and precepts of men], so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16)

When you were dead by reason of your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us [the traditions and precepts of men], which was hostile to us; and He has taken it [the tradition and precepts of men] out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Yahshua Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:17-22)

“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24)

At Post 24 you asked me to clarify my post 6. I answered at post 25 and said I would later further my response.

Your position, if I understand you correctly, is that God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent while I believe (and so does Kevin Schwartz at post 26) that God is omnipotent yet He is omnibenevolent because He chooses to be omnibenevolent.

In my opinion, it is very important to never limit God. When one believes that God must do something, or must act in a certain way, he is limiting God.

It is also true that God is not limited by logic. God is above logic and He created logic. Logic is a tool for this universe, but God is outside this universe. There are many things about God we cannot explain or understand.

For instance, there is the well worn saw “Can God create a rock that is so heavy that even He cannot lift it?” If He is omnipotent, according to logic, then He could certainly create that rock. However, if He is omnipotent, then He could also pick up the rock.

Atheists like to take the above saw and make fun of us, however, they have the exact same problem if one asks them how they explain that an infinite amount of time has passed, yet each new moment adds time to their infinite time span. If you ask them about that, one answer they give is to simply redefine the concept of time, and act as if they solved their problem. They don’t solve that problem.

Your argument that God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is a sophisticated derivation of the heavy rock God saw.

Many Christians are uncomfortable that we are worshipping a God who chooses to be benevolent. They say things such as God is omnibenevolent because He cannot act contrary to His own nature. Think about that, Jason, that is putting God a step below you and me. He has a “nature” that He cannot override? You and I sometimes act in a sacrificial way to help another because we choose to act that way. Surely, God is greater than you and I.

Which leads to a very uncomfortable thought. Could God choose to change His mind? Could God decide to reverse His promises?

Well, if we are going to believe that God has chosen to be benevolent, then maybe He could choose to be otherwise. I think that is what it means when we are told to trust Him. God has given us many promises and has told us we are safe in His hands and you and I believe Him.

Randy, I submit, is totally correct in that people (unwittingly or otherwise) limit God in his actions and non actions: if this then that; however, it is unreasonable to assume that our human minds can even hope to understand the infinite words we generate TO DESCRIBE THE UNFATHOMABLE mind of Omni anything about God as to what he is capable or not, even to the point whereby believing that the ancients declared that God was speaking through them and readers assume that the ancients spoke the words, thoughts and decrees of God.

It would be just as easy to assume that God could speak to everybody on the planet, not just a few chosen ones who went to the Prophet School or the Seminary, the Nunnery or the University of Divinity. Although I am sure that both the old and New Testament writers would never admit that God spoke to anybody in the woman’s Nunnery, other than the manly priests and bishops who visited there.

For this very reason men should never make decrees or commandments or even Church Doctrine based on how they interpret the Gods of the Holy Books as they do; but, they seem to function very well at it and their followers are flocking functional fully too, it seems.

Kevin, when I say we must believe in Christ to be saved, encompassed in that is a repentance towards God. That does not mean I “stop sinning” so I can be saved. Repentance means to change direction. When a person comes to faith they acknowledge they are a sinner and need Jesus Christ for salvation through His death, burial and resurrection. Repentance is not the act of ceasing from our sins, it is a mind set, a change of heart. Naturally with this there may be things that people stop doing but as we know, Christians can struggle with certain sins for a long time as God works on renewing their mind. But that’s another topic. As for salvation, we must repent or turn from our former mindset of unbelief to one of belief towards Jesus Christ in order to be saved. The book of Hebrews illustrates that instead of relying on Christ many Jews still trusted in the OT sacrifices and the law of Moses for their salvation. The scriptures says they had an evil heart of unbelief and in another place it is said that these people have “fallen from grace”. If you fall from grace you end up trusting in your works and returning to the OT religion of self-effort. Apparently God puts a lot of stock on believing what He said rather than the performance of good works which is what we tend to think is most important.

As for obedience, this is an ominous word that scares a lot of Christians into thinking that somehow they are not saved or they will lose their salvation because they have failed to “OBEY” something. In the verse below, notice that Paul said that we have “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine”. This is a heart issue and our obedience to the gospel is to believe and embrace it. There are no hoops we need to jump through. If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you are obedient to the faith and there is nothing else you must do because this is not about we must do but about what Jesus has done. Religious thinking tends to focus on what we “must” do or how we are performing. It focuses on sin and many Christians live their life absorbed with their sins instead of being absorbed by their Savior.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (KJV)

So to sum up your question, repentance towards God and confessing Christ is basically what it means to come to faith in Christ. It is not about head knowledge or works of the law, but a heart change.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB)

“Well, if we are going to believe that God has chosen to be benevolent, then maybe He could choose to be otherwise. I think that is what it means when we are told to trust Him. God has given us many promises and has told us we are safe in His hands and you and I believe Him.”

Randy, well said. That’s exactly it, we are choosing to trust Him. I can’t fathom that Jesus would ever lie to us.

Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”

Naz,
My understanding of repentance is exactly the same as yours. The reason I asked the question about repentance and confessing Christ was to find out what believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ meant to you. It means different things to different people. There is only one gospel, but there are many various beliefs as to what the gospel message is. For example, some people believe that as long as you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for ours sins, then you are saved. Neither repentance nor baptism has any affect whatsoever on your salvation. If you believe, you believe, you cannot add anything to the work of God; therefore repentance and water baptism are considered to be add-ons.

If I correctly understood your reply, believing the gospel means believing includes repentance towards God as it is has been commanded from the beginning of the gospel preached by John and then continued to be preached by Jesus and then continued to be preached by the apostles and disciples of Christ that walked with Him in His earthly ministry, and also, because you believe the gospel they preached, one would naturally would also confess Jesus Christ is the son of the living God and God offers salvation to all that believe in Him.

To summarize your belief in what the message of the gospel of Christ is; Believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for our sins, repent towards God and confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. While believing repentance is part and parcel of the gospel, therefore it is inclusive to believing the gospel and not an add-on to your faith, but you don’t believe water baptism is part and parcel to the gospel, therefore not inclusive in believing the gospel that was preached, therefore it is to be viewed as an add-on to one’s faith. Do I have it right?

Randy and Jason,
I appreciate the level of intellect in which you guys are able to contemplate these things. It is fun and interesting to read your intellectual views. I believe Randy nailed it!!!

The thing that confounds me though is that both of you are believers in Christ, therefore you know God is also human. God, is a spirit, but he became like us, He became part of His creation as a human also, it seems to be unquestionable that God could have sinned while he was here in flesh and blood, but chose not to.

Surely, with your intellects you can argue the existence of a Supreme being (God) could become a part of His corrupted creation, becoming subjected to being corrupted Himself, but being God, He could and or would choose not to, Couldn’t you? Or, am I just missing the point?

Yes I think you have it right. I don’t believe baptism imputes righteousness to us in any way. Nothing happens in the water and we discussed that earlier.

And yes repentance is really part of the believing process as we turn towards God and the salvation He has provided. But this is not the same repentance that John the Baptist preached. His message was one of “stop sinning” and show works that are fitting for repentance. The gospel is much greater than this and does not rely on our faithfulness or ability to stop bad habits etc…That is why the disciples of John the Baptist in the book of Acts needed salvation (Holy Spirit) because John’s message doesn’t save, Christ’s does !

If we start saying one must be baptized or one must to do this or another thing we start going down a slippery slope again towards law-based teaching and fall away from grace. I think we need to let the scriptures speak for themselves with a clear understanding that outward religious works do not mystically impute righteousness. Just think of that thief on the cross beside Jesus. He had a moment of revelation and trust in the Lord…and he is now with Jesus in paradise. It is really that simple.

I understand what your concept of the Gospel is, but I don’t understand your concept of how the type of repentance of the gospel John preached is different from the type of repentance of the gospel the apostles preached, nor the actual difference in the message of gospel John preached and the message of gospel the apostles preached. Throughout the OT and NT, the Biblical message of repentance is the same regardless of who preached it. The gospel message of John and the apostles is basically the same too; believe in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

,With the exception of the known identity of the Messiah, the only difference in the gospel of John and the gospel the apostles preached is water baptism, everything else is exactly the same. The difference in the water baptism of John’s and the disciples of Jesus is John baptized believers into their own repentance for the forgiveness of sins (forgiveness of corporate sins, their own sins were not forgiven). They were not buried with Christ. They were buried without Christ. Even so, these disciples were baptized into their own repentance expressly for the forgiveness of sins nonetheless (Mark 1:4, more on this later). The apostles always baptized the repented believers into Christ expressly for the forgiveness of the their own sins (according to Acts 2:38). According to Paul, everyone should have understood that when they were baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ, they were buried with Christ and united with Him in His good works (Rom 6:3-11, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27). This means that the apostle Paul put the importance of believing not only on repentance, but also on being united with Christ by being baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of each repented persons sins and also the baptism of the Holy Spirit into each believer.

Paul did not preach repentance to these believers of Acts 19 because they had already believed in Christ and repented, so was Paul in error by adding to the gospel when Paul preached baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit to the repented believers he encountered in Acts 19?

In summary, the disciples Paul encountered were repented believers in Jesus Christ, but were only familiar with the baptism of John. If you believe the disciples of Acts 19 were not saved before they met Paul, then the only difference left to consider as to why they were not saved, is they were not saved because they were not baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ and also had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

According to Acts19, Paul apparently believed a repented believer needed to be baptized with water into Christ, otherwise he would not have preached it to them and Paul also did not believe a repented believer receives the gift of the Holy Spirit immediately upon believing and repenting, otherwise Paul would not have had to ask if they had received it. Instead of preaching the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he would have simply explained what the gift of the Holy Spirit was and how they already received it.

I understand this is contrary to what you believe, but according to your observation the disciples in John 19 were not saved before they met Paul, there is no other conclusion we could reasonably come to without twisting the scriptures. Paul did not preach repentance to them because they had no need to repent; they already believed in Christ and repented. Paul preached what he believed they had need of, and according to Acts 19, Paul believed they were in need of being baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ and also being baptized with the Holy Spirit. That is what Paul preached and that is what these repented believers received.

Ephesians chapters 1 & 2 (NASB) speak mightily with sharp clarity to topics under discussion here. Divine Election and the Sovereignty of God’s Will [Ephesians 1:4-6]; Redemption & Forgiveness of our sins [Ephesians 1:7-9]; Atonement, Reconciliation & Predestination [Ephesians 1:10-12]; Faith & Salvation by Grace alone; i.e., Justification by Messiah, Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, Glorification in God the Father, Inheritance of Messiah’s Divine Kingdom & the Covenants of Promise to bring about God all in all [Ephesians 1:13-23]; Human Depravity [Ephesians 2:1-3]; God’s Regeneration of us sinners & His Sovereign Divine Purpose in doing so [Ephesians 2:4-9]. I am in complete agreement with your conclusion: “Throughout the OT and NT, the Biblical message of repentance is the same regardless of who preached it.” This emphasizes the fact that both OT & NT are part & parcel of the one and only Bible. Indeed as you are well aware it is the OT that Messiah teaches His disciples as Scripture in the NT. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians emphasizes this as well [Ephesians 2:10-22] declaring, “So then you [Gentiles] are no longer strangers and aliens [to God], but you are fellow citizens [heirs] with the saints, and are of God’s household [having received adoption], HAVING BEEN BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, CHRIST JESUS/MESSIAH YAHSHUA HIMSELF BEING THE CORNER STONE [emphasized and cf. Luke 6:46-49], in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 NASB)

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus/Messiah Yahshua for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10 NASB)

Frank,
It is understood and agreed we are not saved by obedience to the Law. We are saved wholly by grace. God does the work of grace, not us. We can do nothing to save ourselves. The moment the word obedience is uttered, someone will accuse you of suggesting we must be obedient to the Law. I am not trying to say any work we do can save us, nor I a saying we can be saved by obedience to the law.

What I am struggling to accurately address is this; we must know God and obey the gospel to receive His grace (2 Thess 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17). Therefore it is imperative to know whom God is and what it means to obey His gospel. This happens when we believe in Jesus Christ. Our believing in Christ is not a work of our own, but a work of God (John 6:29).

According to the scriptures, there are four firsthand accounts from four separate parties that bore separate witness to the gospel firsthand:

1. John the Baptist.
2. Jesus Christ.
3. The twelve apostles that were in the upper room together on the Day of Pentecost.
4. The apostle Paul.

All four of these parties preached the one and same message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
2. Believe in Jesus Christ.
3. Repentance and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If we believe the gospel and put our faith in it, why would we not believe in this whole message that has been confirmed from the very beginning?

According to John 6:29, if we believe the one and same message of the gospel that has been given to us from the beginning of John’s preaching, and then confirmed by all of the parties that received it firsthand from God, then none of the message is a work of man. It is as the context of John 6:28-29 says it is a work of God. This means that the whole message; believing, repentance and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of the Holy Spirit is a work that only God does. So how is it that some say you only need to believe by mental ascent Jesus Christ is the Son of God to be saved; repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not necessary because they are works of man that you are adding to the gospel? Others say you must believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent towards God, but baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not necessary because it is a work of man and to require it is adding onto the gospel?

The question is this; how can repentance and water baptism that was undeniably given to man by God through four separate parties giving their firsthand accounts of the gospel of God, be considered by anyone as something that has been added to the gospel as a work of man? Jesus Himself preached this message. If you don’t believe the one God has sent (John 6:29) then how can you obey His gospel? Is not your faith in vain because of your unbelief?

There’s a lot of talk about being careful to not read too much into scripture, yet there are a lot of scriptural gymnastics performed to explain away the work of God as if it is the work of man. When it comes to believing the whole gospel is the work of God, the widely held doctrines of today do not believe it is, because the widely and commonly held beliefs cuts out the work of God that He does in our repentance and our baptism into Christ.

In summary Believing in Christ and obeying His gospel (in its entirety without subtracting from it) is not obedience to the Law or an attempt by man to do a work for hinself, but it is believing in the work of God through Jesus Christ.

In this world of self-delusion & self-aggrandizement surely sin and obedience prove distasteful aversive subjects to many. First, we are to be transformed by God so that we go from being dead in sin to become dead to sin. Examine Romans 6. We are to go from slaves of sin/death [Romans 6:12, 21] to become slaves for obedience/slaves of righteousness [Romans 6:16-19]. Second, examine Acts 5 giving particular attention to Acts 5:27-42. The bottom line as stated therein remains this: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.'” (Acts 5:29) Despite all the corrupt attempts using Satan’s unsound doctrinal tradition & precepts to silence & punish (to put it mildly) the apostles for their steadfast commitment to obey Messiah’s gospel which He founded in the Scriptural core and root of OT God’s Law they [the apostles] preserved their integrity and the integrity of the Word of God by continuing to abide in God’s/Messiah’s command to preach in the manner of the Great Commission. “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus/Yahshua as Christ/Messiah.” (Acts 5:41-42)

He who watches the wind will not sow and he who looks at the clouds will not reap. (Ecclesiastes 11:4)

Kevin, seems like there is some confusion in your last few posts. I don’t want to add to it with a long response. I will try to be brief.

Jesus Christ has done all the work through the cross and that work is finished. The source of salvation is Jesus Christ, not our obedience or repentance or water baptism. We are the recipients of this great salvation if we so choose to be.

As a sinner, when we first choose to belief in Christ our disposition is naturally one of Godly sorrow (repentance) as we realize that our way is not working and we need God. We die with Christ and are spiritually baptized into Him by receiving the Holy Spirit. God gives us a new spirit and our old man is dead as we are declared once and for all totally forgiven of all sins (past, present and future) and are declared perfectly righteous. All of what I just said could be looked as being “obedient to the faith”.

Our salvation is a spiritual reality that does not require a demonstration of outward works. If I were to get hit with a Mack truck on my way to my baptism, I would still be saved because God has done a spiritual surgery in my heart already. As a child of God now, I modify my behavior to suit who I am because sin doesn’t fit any longer. This is a life long process of the renewing of my mind. Through all the ups and downs I am still 100% righteous with no need for “extra” forgiveness to keep me saved. It is finished.

The epistles explain the spiritual realities the gospel brings to us and explains the theology that we need to understand. The book of Acts is a history book of what the apostles did. We need to be careful not to get our theology from the book of Acts but to read it for what it is, a history book. Again, context is so important.

I know not everyone will agree with me and I will surely be accused of twisting scriptures and so forth. All I can say is the grace of God is an awesome and controversial thing. A death row pardon is a big deal, and that is what we have.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Naz,
I agree with most of what you believe, but we have some differences in our understanding. I’ve been trying to understand what you believe about the Gospel messages that are works of God and, what if any, are not the work of God, but works of man. I understood you to say both believing in Jesus Christ and repentance towards God are all that is necessary for salvation; you don’t believe water baptism is part of the salvation message of the Gospel because it is not a work of God, it is a work of man.

What I find confusing is your post #61 and #85 seems to raise at least two, maybe more, contradictions to your aforementioned beliefs and your interpretation of scripture.

Regarding repentance: The scriptures don’t support your take on the type of repentance John preached is different than what the gospel preaches. John preached the gospel. The repentance John preached is the exactly the same as all others that preached the gospel. John said to bare fruit fitting of repentance. Would not all that truly repent bare fruit fitting of repentance? Your take on John’s message of repentance meant to stop sinning and show good works, rather than turn towards God is not consistent with scripture.

Contradiction #1) your observation of these disciples as not yet saved contradicts your aforementioned belief that believing in Jesus Christ and repentance is all that is need to be saved. They were repented disciples that believed in Christ, yet for these disciples, it isn’t enough to be saved.

Contradiction #2) your post #61 regarding Paul never preached baptism. Quote: “Paul said he was sent to preach the gospel and not to baptize. Surely if baptism had some mystical significance then surely Paul would have preached baptism, yet he did not.” Unquote. Contrary to this comment and according to Acts 19, the only part of the gospel Paul preached to these believers was baptism; baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul did not preach Christ and Him crucified, nor did he preach repentance. Why? They had already received this message of the gospel and believed. Note: Look at your posted Quote “Paul said he was sent to preach the gospel . . .” End Quote. Is Paul not preaching the gospel to these believers? Is Paul not preaching water baptism in the name of Jesus? Surely, baptism with the water and the Spirit were equally important to the gospel Paul preached. After all, he was called to preach the gospel wasn’t he?

I agree Paul preached an important message concerning their salvation. Paul preached the only important message of the gospel they had not yet received: baptism, and only baptism. Paul preached water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is all that Paul preached because this what they only had need of. If they had not already received the message and believed it; meaning the part of the message of Christ and Him crucified, and repentance toward God. Paul would have preached these things also if it was not already understood that had already received them. Why? It is of first and second importance!

In hopes to avoid any further confusion, what I’ve been trying to establish is: what it means to ‘believe”, not what we must do to be saved. The scripture are clear we can do nothing of ourselves to be saved. By the actions of the believers in Acts 19 and elsewhere, I believe the scriptures clearly show us what it meant to “believe” to the people of “The Way”.

My comments on Acts 19: Paul never preached believing Christ is the Messiah or the need to repent toward God to the disciples and believers of Acts 19. He preached what they were missing from the gospel message they had received; baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

What did these repented believers in Jesus Christ do upon hearing the gospel message of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit? They were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and they received the same baptism of the Holy Spirit in the same way it received 23 years earlier on the Day of Pentecost; they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance!

I submit Acts 19 serves us as a perfect example of how believers that received and accepted the whole message of the gospel, believed and obeyed in the whole gospel of Christ; they believe in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for our sins, repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as the spirit gives the utterance. This is what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost and this is what Paul preached in 23 years later and it is what all of these believers experienced in Acts 19! It is what all believers today should experience! For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:39)

Kevin, I think this conversation is coming to and end now as I don’t see you are receiving anything I’m trying to convey. I don’t want this to turn into an argument.

Regarding repentance, Luke 3:7-14 shows that John was preaching behavior modification primarily. Although this is not the gospel, he did tell the people that there was one coming that was greater than him, Jesus.

Luk 3:10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

As for Acts 19, these disciples did not know the gospel since they have not heard about the Holy Spirit. The main point of the gospel is Christ in us.

As for what Paul preached or didn’t preach, Paul did say he baptized a few people but his focus was preaching the gospel and not baptizing people.

For the last time, the gospel is about the work of Christ, not ours. It is about His finished work on the cross. When you get this revelation and understanding, you will start to see things differently than what the UPC is teaching you.

Naz,
I don’t want to argue. I would prefer that we don’t turn our backs on one another. If you cannot discuss the scriptures without getting upset with a differing view, then it’s best to stop conversing. It should be ok to discuss these things with maturity. None of us knows everything and we should understand we would not always see things the same way. I am an open-minded person willing to look at anything or doctrine someone wants to discuss. I’ll never become upset with anyone because they don’t see it my way. I am also open to changing my opinion if I can see the merit of another’s point of view. Otherwise what benefit do we gain if all we are trying to do is prove we are right? I learned a long ago that one of the biggest enemies of seeing what God wants to reveal to us is to study to prove and support something you already believe. This is why I asked you questions because I was trying to see what you see.

I only spoke from my point of view after I understood yours and gave scripture to support it. Is it not ok to challenge your view? Is it ok to ask you if only your view is valid? I welcome someone to point out where I might be in error, provided they supported there view with sound reasoning and scripture. You were in error by claiming Paul didn’t preach water baptism and when you referenced Acts 19, you referenced one of many scriptures that directly disputed it. Ironically, according to Acts 19 Paul never preached Christ and Him crucified to these believers. He only preached baptism with water and Spirit. Where am I wrong for pointing this out? Where are you correct saying I am not seeing what you are conveying? Your last post-clarified Paul did not come to baptize, but that is a different issue than not preaching baptism. You did not acknowledge or retract your statement that Paul never preached water baptism. He preached and believed in baptism with water into Christ (please observe that Paul didn’t believe in baptizing in water, he believed in baptizing into Christ with water). The gospel Paul preached was Christ’s death, burial, resurrection was of first importance, but he put importance on repentance, baptism into Christ with water, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul never preached a gospel that did not include the elementary principles of importance.

For clarity sake, I agree with you that the gospel is about the work of Christ. What I cannot see is how you disclaim any of the following is not part of the Gospel work of Christ; repentance, baptism with water into Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is Christ baptized into us Col 1:27).

Lastly, I am disappointed that you sized me up as a UPC believer. I am not a follower of the UPC teachings nor am I a member of a UPC congregation, nor and adherent to the UPC doctrine. I will say this, no one knows it all and certainly I know that I don’t. I am open to teachings by those that identify themselves as trintarians and those that identify themselves as oneness believers. Both have some very good revelations and understanding of scripture. Concerning these two groups, I don’t understand the animosity that some from each side display toward the other. They argue what? There is one God? No. Both parties agree God is one and there is only one God. The only difference I can see is the trintarians believes there are three separate persons that are somehow also only one person of God, but they don’t have a revelation as how it can be so, To them remains is a mind boggling mystery. On the other hand, the oneness people believe the one person of God is somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and they claim this through revelation, it is not a mystery to them.

It’s not my fight to argue these things, nor accuse somebody of being something they are not. It’s my desire to study the scriptures to see what is true and to share with others what I know.

Naz,
Apology accepted and appreciated. The reality is we all must start at the same sacred place of repentance towards God. Salvation begins with repentance towards God and believing in the work of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Growing in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is a lifelong process in our walk with God. If we keep an open heart and open mind, and seek by asking God to reveal more and more of Himself to us, we will do well because God is a rewarder of those that seek Him. The Bible is all about God revealing Himself to us (mankind) and understanding this is why I study the scriptures while asking Him why, what, where, when, and how. There’s never been a denomination that saved anyone by their word (doctrine), but many people have been saved by believing in the Word of God; Jesus Christ. It’s not the denominations of Christianity that decides who is saved or destroyed, it is Christ Jesus and Him alone sits on the Throne of Judgement.

RELATIVE POINTS:
Jesus and John the Baptist were not actually separate parties; they were, at the very least, blood cousins because Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin, relative, aunt, krovah and quite possibly, at the very most, may even have had the same father which would have made them paternal step brothers.

BAPTISM:
John’s first words were about REPENTANCE:
Matthew 3:
1-2 While Jesus was living in the Galilean hills, John, called “the Baptizer,” was preaching in the desert country of Judea. His message was simple and austere, like his desert surroundings: “Change your life ( REPENT). God’s kingdom is here.”

Jesus first words were about REPENTANCE
Mark 1:
14-15 After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Message of God: “Time’s up! God’s kingdom is here. Change your life (REPENT) and believe the Message.”

THE WORK OF MAN OR GOD:
Matthew 21:
25″The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.” And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things”.

It is an exercise in futility to make a claim about what the main message of Jesus is because Jesus preached many messages….many messages, all of which were important for the revolution he began and the campaign he launched FOR the love humanity needs; at the same time, speaking out AGAINST organized, ritual religious dominance that meant absolutely nothing apart from the purpose of making money and financial gain for the clergy. Clergy that devoured widows homes while making a lengthy show of words claiming the Clergy spoke on behalf and did the work of, God!

Kevin, thanks for your kind words.
I will try to better explain my understanding of these things. I am currently going through a spiritual renovation myself so I apologize if I cannot clearly convey my thoughts.

Earlier on I was trying to convey that salvation is a spiritual reality and not an external demonstration through anything we do. Water baptism is part of what the apostles preached but water baptism is not part of salvation itself. Salvation is in Christ alone. The gospel message is about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We are saved when we have faith in Him. I know that you already know that 🙂

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The baptism of the Holy Spirit or receiving the Holy Spirit is when Christ comes to permanently dwell in us and this happens at salvation. This is the baptism that saves us, if you want to look at it like that, and it is purely a work of God. Even John the baptist said that there was one coming after him that would baptize with the Holy Spirit, Jesus. This is the essence of the gospel, it is a spiritual reality of Christ coming to live in us, the hope of glory !

There is no teaching in the epistles that indicate water baptism is something that God does. If that was the case, we would be treading very close to mysticism and that is a snare we don’t want to get caught in. Using common sense, water baptism is something we do when we are immersed in a tub of water. I’m not saying that a Christian should not be baptized. But we must look at baptism for what it is. It is symbolic of the spiritual reality of being placed into death with Christ and rising to new life. If we start to enforce water baptism as the means to obtain forgiveness of sins, then we are straying from the truth since we know that it is only by blood, not water, that we can receive forgiveness of sins. So that points us back to Jesus and Him alone without adding to it. The epistles consistently teach that salvation is through faith in Christ alone. Baptism was and is a practice of the church and we must not make more of it than what it is. The verse below emphasizes that baptism in the Spirit is what is essential and the means by which God dwells in us.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Regarding repentance, I think we are splitting hairs on this one. When a person comes to faith, this implies that he acknowledges he is a sinner and turns to God to obtain forgiveness. Repentance that leads to salvation is Godly sorrow and not changing my behavior or stopping my bad habits so God will forgive me. Forgiveness comes from my faith in Christ based on what He did. It appears that the repentance that John preached was a behavior modification message for the forgiveness of sins. John told people to stop extorting, stop stealing etc… but John did tell people to look ahead to Christ. So John’s message was still mostly a works based type of message akin to the old testament although he did point people to Christ. Keep in mind, the gospels are written when the old covenant was still in force so it should not surprise us when a preacher like John demands “works fitting for repentance”. The gospel of Christ does not teach us to modify our behavior before we can receive God’s salvation. That would be salvation by works and would be putting the cart before the horse. We know from the epistles that we are saved “for” good works which God has prepared for us.

Acts 19
I will say again, that I believe it is a mistake to use the book of Acts as a means in understanding the spiritual realities of God’s salvation. That is what the epistles are for. I love the book of Acts but it is a history book of the actions of the apostles as they preached the gospel. As a history book, we only have very short descriptions of what the apostles preached and not a play by play dialogue of everything that they said to those they spoke to. So to say Paul did not preach Jesus Christ crucified because it is not mentioned in Acts 19 doesn’t make sense, since we know from the epistles that Christ crucified is all that Paul wanted to preach. Herein lies the danger in using the book of Acts as a doctrinal book. The apostles did a lot things in the book of Acts. For example, at one point Paul used his handkerchiefs to heal people. So based on that, do we create a teaching where we pray over handkerchiefs and start using them to heal people ? We need to tell the difference of what is descriptive versus what is prescriptive. Because we see people speaking in tongues when they receive the Spirit does that mean that everybody will speak in tongues when they receive the Spirit ? Is that what the epistles teach ? No, they don’t. If speaking in tongues was that the absolute evidence of having received Christ, why is it not mentioned regularly in Paul’s epistles ? The only time it is mentioned is in 1 Corinthians and there it says that not all speak with tongues.

Naz,
I would like to respond to your post for the purpose of discussion , but I am not sure it would be welcomed because your “sign off” seems to be meant as goodbye. Am I right or am I being to sensitive?

Naz:
“The gospel message is about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.”

You are totally off base and I don’t care how many churches or self proclaimed Christians agree with you.”

Do you suppose Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about when he said.
“Those who are included in the resurrection of the dead will no longer be concerned with marriage nor, of course, with death. They will have better things to think about, if you can believe it. All ecstasies and intimacies then will be with God. God isn’t the God of dead men, but of the living.”

Another reading is presented this way:
“29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Again: “Jesus said, “You’re way off base, and here’s why: One, you don’t know your Bibles; two, you don’t know how God works. The living God is God of the living, not the dead. You’re way, way off base.”

The Gospel message is about Jesus and his life and the way to live and love. What you recite is what is called Church Dogma not words from Jesus.

Naz Naz:
What Paul did for healing was to cleanse wounds and sores and wrap the injury in handkerchief or aprons, today we would call them bandages and bandaids which provide healing miracles from keeping clean the injury, or the splinter infection or hangnail skin lesions.

So the masses attributed the healing to Paul and not to the bandages that kept out the pathogens and allowed the body’s immune system to heal the body as we know today from medical research and experience, that is what happens when you cover an injury or diseased(infected part of the body). In those days clean and coverings were not necessary parts of the populations medical procedures; they would let the injury heal itself without treatment, a manly thing to do no doubt. I met people like that in my own daily life. One man had his thumb severed by a power saw but after the hospital sewed the thumb back onto the flesh that remained he refused medical care thereafter because he believed the thumb could heal by itself without medical intervention. He was wrong and his thumb remains twisted and unhealed after one year.

Miracles are easily explained in so many cases by simple common sense. The young man that fell from the third floor when Paul was preaching long into the night was said to have been dead; well, he was unconscious and dead like but not dead as Paul made known when he checked his heart beat and breath but the masses still attributed to Paul a miracle, that raised the dead young man to life and some Christian still think the young man was dead according to the word used in scripture, Ain’t so!

Naz:
Congrats. I knew you would see it my way eventually: the power of persistence. About the names….Like Jesus, I understand that I AM Everyman; now, you too can have the insight to see what few other people are free enough to see.

Naz:
Your ilk needs a common foe in order to bond together unfortunately; if I fulfill that role so you can come together united then that’s a good thing. But I don’t buy into that blood sacrifice thing of the Pharisees.

This outside common for was a practice when civil unrest proved too much to quell; England for example to stop civil disobedience and riots would begin a war with France or Spain which served as a bonding glue as nationalism supplanted the differences among the citizens.

An outside foe functions similar to a Devil’s Advocate in debate settings:
In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

The background of this word comes from an official position within the Catholic Church, in which a canon lawyer called the Devil’s Advocate, also known as the Promoter of Faith, “argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization.”

It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate’s character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil’s advocate opposed God’s advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. During the investigation of a cause, this task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining the accuracy of the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate.[3] The Promoter of the Faith remains a figure in the Congregation of the Causes of Saints and is also known as the Prelate Theologian.[4]

The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V. The first formal mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Pope Leo.

Regarding your post #105, I believed you conveyed your theology on salvation, the tenets of the gospel, and your view of scripture. You supported your theology with the use of scripture. I would like to respond to several of the conclusions that you made based on scripture, but I’m apprehensive to do so because, like you, I don’t want to be drawn in or draw you into a debate that closes the heart and mind to the point we search the scriptures to prove we are right instead of examining to see what is true.

So, my question to you is this: Are you open to looking at scriptures that are at odds with some of the conclusions you have made in post #105 and if you see where you may be off as track a little bit, would you be willing to change your opinion?

FYI: My answer to this question is yes, I would change or modify my belief and understanding of anything that proves I am in error or simply had the wrong understanding.
Kevin

Frank:
Some unresolved conundrums for one who is changeless, immutable.

God rested…..God does not need rest but man does.

God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

“And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
Sorrow and grief are emotions of man but not for one who is changeless, immutable.

Gen 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
AND CHANGED HIS MIND:
Gen 7: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

AND THEN HE CHANGED HIS MIND and Repents
Gen 6:7….for I am sorry that I have made them.
“I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake……… nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.”

God said, “The cries of the victims in Sodom and Gomorrah are deafening; …………. I’m going down to see for myself, see if what they’re doing is as bad as it sounds. Then I’ll know.” What? Then I will Know? Men talking

Abraham stood in God’s path, blocking his way. Man talk

God spoke to Israel in a vision that night: “Jacob! Jacob!” Gen 46:2
Man dream
Yet God had already changed his name from Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:24-3024

24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
why would God now call him by his old name Jacob? Did God forget?

These can only be resolved when one understands that these were men talking but claiming it was God talking through them which is merely church dogma you buy hook, line and sinker.

I hope you can see that the video you uploaded (R.C. Sproul:….) confirms, not the immutability of God but confirms that the bible was written and communicated by men who can only CLAIM that their words are the words of God; when in fact, that is impossible. So all the communication in the bible becomes dogma to religious people but cannot possibly be words from God yet we say they ARE GOD’S WORD, GOD SAYS THIS, GOD SAYS THAT.

This is why I say over and over that the words of virtue, blessings, the decrees and laws one reads about in the bible cannot be from God and can only be from man; albeit, some words attributed to God; say, words like perfection, omniscient, can only describe cosmic existence and laws that operate on descriptions we call and coin as Laws of Physics: Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Matter, Light, Heat, Energy, Life.

The concept of God as a choice word for all of it. God would be better described as Gravity is described, without emotion, without change, immutable, other than when acted upon by an outside external forces similar too or contradictory to the force of that which it interacts with, which then impact the outcome accordingly. We know that magnetism in a dynamo produces electricity when it spins against our bicycle wheel to produce a headlight beam at night from the handlebar mount. And so there is, in electricity, complicity with magnetism, wire conductor and mechanical force interaction.

So we don’t pray to Gravity or Electricity or Magnetism; we learn to understand the parameters of those forces so we may work within the parameters of those forces to our benefit. That’s why electricians work with rubber boots and rubber gloves because it insulates them from shock that would kill them when touched without the insulators.

Now just think of this analogy for a minute: The Dynamo operates by the Magnet, in unison with Spin Motion, within the Wire Coil and generates the channeled electricity that converts to heat in the resistant Element to bright and Light the night, the Dynamo, 3 in 1, can be likened to the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

Kevin, my understanding of the scriptures has changed several times already to where I am today. If for example, I was to consent that water baptism is essential to salvation, I would be taking a step back and that I am not willing to do.

We can continue our discussion if you like and you can site scriptures to show me where you think I’ve strayed, that’s OK. This is all good and I’m not afraid to examine the scriptures.

I strongly believe that if we do not use serious critical thinking when we read the scriptures, we are certain to misunderstand them. In general, I find that God’s grace is too radical for Christians to accept. While we say that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, we quickly contradict this statement and resort to double-talk.

I am getting a little uncomfortable continuing this long discussion on this blog at Jason’s expense. Let me know how you feel about that.

You are lioke the Catholic family I grew up with. They had the bible on the podium opened but never read once in any way shape or form in the 6 years I lived there. Why? Because the Church always contends that it is too much of a mystery that we will never understand so simply forget it. That was the message since ancient days in order to keep the masses from exploring for knowledge and finding out through research that the Clergy was deceitful from the beginning and all you are doing is taking the position of the lamentation of Eccl. such as the bible passages you posted from and here is another one of the reasons that people should be skeptical of the bible and the interpretation of dogma church and clergy who would continue with the plan to hide their deceit.

14 I’ve also concluded that whatever God does, that’s the way it’s going to be, always. No addition, no subtraction. God’s done it and that’s it. That’s so we’ll quit asking questions and simply worship in holy fear.

15 Whatever was, is.
Whatever will be, is.
That’s how it always is with God.

Bunch of resignation crock actually.

THUS IS RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADJUDICATOR:
“Yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”

Your post scripture is used like a poison arrow even unto the heart of Jesus’ own words, words meant for the cleric-deceit you espouse from Eccl.
Besides that, your post addresses nothing re: Post 119 other than to regurgitate ancient dogmatic rhetoric that will never open anybody’s eyes or mind and which reminds me of what Jesus said of people similar to yourself about trying to hide knowledge:

Said the Lord Jesus, the Smart One who defeats you and your ancestors; the ancestors from whose shoulders you still spew their nonsense of defeatism and deceit to hinder those seeking knowledge, seeking the truth, seeking the way.

“Woe to you scholarly experts in religious law! You have taken away the key to knowledge! You did not go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in.” (Luke 11:52)

1. First, do you believe that one can find Salvation or understand Grace, Baptism and Salvation by reading only the Old Testament scriptures?

2. Second, do you believe that one can find Salvation or understand Grace, Baptism and Salvation referring to the New Testament scriptures consisting only of the Gospels of Mark Matthew, Luke and John?

3. Third, do you believe that one can find Salvation or understand Grace, Baptism and Salvation by referring only to the New Testament scriptures only from Acts onwards?

Naz,
This is the first time I ever blogged so I don’t know anything about costs whatsoever. If it’s inappropriate to discuss something off the topic, then of course I would not have gone this far. I need guidance for somebody about this.

Meanwhile, I am glad you’re open to looking at another view of scriptures concerning baptism, because I would like to discuss it further. Thus far, I don’t believe you proved water baptism is only a work of man. So let’s clear a few things up so serious critical thinking can be applied.

1) We both know that we are saved wholly by the grace of God and there is nothing we can do to provide salvation for ourselves through our own works.
2) All scripture is profitable for doctrine. We cannot put a disclaimer on the book of Acts or the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (see 2 Tim 3:16-17).
3) To be specific, we are addressing one question; Is water baptism a work of God or a work of man?
4) To answer this question, serious critical thinking requires us to ask the following questions: (A) Is the gospel of Jesus Christ a work of God or a work of man? (B) Was repentance and water baptism into repentance for the forgiveness of sins preached by John from the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ? (C) Was repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins preached by the twelve apostles and Paul? (D) Do we need to obey the gospel?
5) If water baptism is a work of man, which scriptures support this view and why?
6) If water baptism is a work of God, which scripture support this view and why?

Thus far, you have claimed water baptism is a work of man, but have not provided any scriptural proof to support your belief.
For one example, you argued that Paul didn’t come to baptize and never preached baptism, but we know he did both. You didn’t reference the scripture, but it’s obvious you were referring to (1 Cor 1:12). Your position is way out of context with the scripture. These believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and Paul clearly understood the reason they were baptized In the name of Jesus was because Jesus was crucified for the (see vs. 12-13). Paul was glad he didn’t baptize these immature believers so no one would say they were baptized in the name of Paul. Paul’s’ point when he said he wasn’t sent to baptize because it doesn’t matter who does the baptizing, it’s who you are being baptized into and the reason for that is the one you are baptized into is the one who was crucified for you. That is the context.

I believe it would be helpful if we set aside the above for a moment and talk about the baptism of Jesus Christ. I really would like to know what your take is on it. Was it a work of God? Are we saved by it? Could we have been saved without it? Was it also an act of faith by Jesus? Please let me know. The answers to these questions could help both of us conclude this issue quickly.

Naz,
With the confidence you’ve displayed regarding baptism, it is a somewhat surprising you aren’t prepare to explain the baptism of Jesus. After all, how could Jesus have been anymore straightforward than He was about it?Having said that, its wise to meditate on the scriptures before you answer.

Meanwhile, I would be agreeable that our salvation is an inner spiritual work done by God, but not only an inner spiritual work, but there is an outward spiritual work also done by God that only God can see. We cannot see the outward spiritual work done by God, but He sees it nonetheless. To Him, it is very real and very important according to His keeping is original promise to make man in His own image and according to His likeness. We will see the outward work He now sees, but only after the resurrection, when we see him as He really is (1 John 3:2, 2 Cor 3:18).

God is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him (Heb 11:6). God draws us to Him by His Spirit and grants us repentance, therefore I believe the spiritual work of God in our salvation always begins by faith in God at the time of our repentance towards God, Salvation begins with believing, but it is not yet complete. We must continue in our faith according to His word. Salvation can be lost can in unbelief (Jude 1:5-6).

Naz,
If you truly understand baptism, you can answer one simple question immediately and if you are not able to answer this simple and straightforward question immediately, tell me so, and I will give you the answer immediately and you should immediately understand it. If you cannot answer the question and you need me to answer this question, then I ask that you hear me out with why I believe water baptism is a work of God that, in part, saves us. Fair enough?

The question is: how was all righteousness fulfilled when Jesus was baptized?

It’s evident that from the beginning of Messiah’s earthly ministry [His baptism] to the end of it [His suffering leading to death by crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension] He who was without sin was called by the LORD/YHWH to be the sin bearer for us [Hebrews 4:15]. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world would become the Man of Sorrows who bears our sickness; the Redeemer/Mediator who would be pierced through, crushed for our iniquities and intercedes for the transgressors; by His knowledge the Righteous One, the Servant of YHWH, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities and by His scourging we are healed [Isaiah 53].

What is evident to me is that if you cannot argue your positions based only on the teachings of Jesus from the four Gospels, Matt, Mk, Lk & Jn then all you are doing is dancing across the pages over centuries of time like ninjas and arguing your position based on the philosophy of everyone in the Bible except Jesus Christ.

Whether your position about Jesus, John The Baptist, or any of the “key” words you try to debate, is valid, you cannot support your position from any source other than Jesus Christ; therefore, you have no bark on the trees of theology you try to defend.

In other words you are barking up the wrong tree and are rendered impotent because of it.

Matthew 16: 27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father;……..; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,

Luke 16:16
The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. (still using the scriptures and philosophy of the past to present the future)

Yes, it will be ‘business as usual’ right up to the day when the Son of Man is revealed. That day is now upon you.

And in the clouds (metaphor for above) of cyberspace shall he be revealed to “as many as”, are led by the spirit, they are the sons of the Father.

Matthew 28: After the escape from the tomb….” the eleven disciples were on their way to Galilee, headed for the mountain where Jesus had set for their reunion. The moment they saw him they worshiped him. Some, though, doubting held back, not sure about risking themselves totally.

18-20 Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: “God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism
(metaphorical-after water baptism, the prior, like the Law and Prophets, now is the spirit of the word) in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then INSTRUCT THEM(The Nations) IN THE PRACTICE OF ALL I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. I’ll be with you(metaphor-“in spirit”) as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age.” (metaphor- until the transition from the old to the new)

Kevin:
“Your observation is not correct. The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is easily defended from the teachings of Jesus Christ written with in four gospels.”

Not an observation but a revelation:

That’s exactly what I meant so what do you mean “not correct”.

Read what I said again:

“What is evident to me is that IF YOU CANNOT argue your positions based only on the teachings of Jesus from the four Gospels, Matt, Mk, Lk & Jn then all you are doing is dancing across the pages over centuries of time like ninjas and arguing your position based on the philosophy of everyone in the Bible except Jesus Christ.”

PS: This is a good starting point to discuss baptism. It requires you to search the scriptures for the answer.

Hint: I know, y know the answer and it should be easy for you to answer this question. I am not sure if it even requires serious critical thinking . . . it might, but then again, it might not, After-all we can’t be saved by serious critical thinking otherwise we would be saved by our own works.

I don’t know the first promise you believe Jesus made. I can’t discern if his words were promises or declarations; on the other hand, he said not to swear or make an oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, is that different than making a promise or a vow?

I didn’t ask you to tell me the first promise I believed was made. I asked you what the first promise was. Either way, it is apparent that you don’t know what the promise was and is. Before I tell and show you with the support of scripture, I need to know if you view Jesus as also being the Father and if so, please explain why.

Sometimes, maybe oftentimes, I don’t convey my thoughts properly. Allow me to clarify my previous post. I find it interesting that you seem to identify Jesus as the father and I have no issues with anyone seeing Jesus as the Father. I just want you to confirm that I understood you correctly and, if so and in a few words, how did you arrive at this conclusion. Afterward, I want to share with you what the first promise God ever made concerning man. I will do it according to your rule of using the teachings within the Gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John.

Kevin, I was going to post my comments about Jesus’ baptism but it sounds like you wanted an immediate answer to this question.

“How was all righteousness fulfilled in the baptism of Jesus?”

You have misunderstood this verse completely. This is not at all what Jesus meant when He said this.

He did not say this to say that His baptism would fulfill all righteousness. In terms of fulfilling all righteousness, Jesus does that through His life, death and resurrection not through getting dunked in water !

The sense here is that it is fitting for us (the people of God, including Himself) to submit to all of God’s ordinances. As I will explain later, even though Jesus did not need baptism He did it anyway. This is typical of His character and it reminds me of the time when He washed the disciples feet.

Kevin, I said this before but I will say it again and please don’t take offense. You have a tendency to be very mystical in your reading of scripture and are trying to make connections where there are none. I don’t know why you are so determined to prove that God does some mysterious thing through water baptism ? This is about Jesus Christ the person, not some mystical ritual that mysteriously saves our soul. I’m sorry but we can never be in agreement in this matter.

I will still post my comments about the baptism if you want. The reason I couldn’t before is because I actually have a life outside this blog that requires my attention from time to time 🙂

Of course you want me to tell you the first promise as you believe it because you believe you know what that is and I don’t because you haven’t told me what you believe. But if you can prove it by Jesus within the 4 Gospels I would like to know that, if you are going to try and prove it outside the 4 gospels I will not buy it because I too believe I know what I am talking about when it comes to the son and the father. Simple isn’t it. And so we dialogue from different perspectives. I do not interpret scriptures with any supernatural slant. I do not accept hocus pocus magic tricks as miracles and I don’t accept that any person spoke to or heard from God: the Entity of the Old Testament and every other the Holy Book ever written. Nor do I accept the prophecies of psychics and self proclaimed messengers because they went to school to learn how to become a Prophet.

No Jesus was not the Father.

Jesus was the son like you and like me, born in a shell but a son who rightly perceived and interpreted that shell and then took it upon himself to demonstrate that perception and interpretation throughout his life by not becoming entangles by the cares, riches and pleasures of the world that the sensory perceptions reveal to us as well as all the perceptions of the goodness of virtues, compassion, caring and righteousness. And by practice we grow up trained in the way of discretionary power to accept the good and reject the bad. Most people are too pig headed to understand the importance of making the right choices, especially as we go through the period of childish and youthful rebellion.

A rich young ruler came and said “Good Master” and the Lord Jesus immediately said “Why do you call me good”. There is only one who is good, God. So please don’t congratulate me, all I am doing, as man, is allowing my Father, in me, to be as good as God is.
So when you look at me, allowing him to be who he is, doing as he pleases, clothing his divine activity with my humanity; when you look at me, you see him. Don’t call me good. I’m simply, as man, discharging that office, to give a physical visible representation of an invisible self intimately identified with an invisible God and my Father who lives in me, he does the work, what I do he does, what I say he says, what I am he is, so when you look at me, you see him. “Oh, by the way, says the Lord Jesus, as my Father sent me……..I send you.

I’m anticipating that you will place your humanity at my disposal as I am now placing my humanity at my Father’s disposal. So that there’s only one possible explanation for what I do, for what I say and for what I am, my Father living in me by the holy spirit so henceforth there will be only one possible explanation for what you do, what you say and what you are, my living in you by the same holy spirit. Allowed by you, to be to you what I am allowing my Father now to be to me, God. Now this is the Christian life; this is the gospel, this is the good news; that on the grounds of the redemptive transactions because he lay down his life as an example and a ransom for many, he being risen again can come and take up residence within your humanity by his example and be now to you all that he allowed for thirty three years the Father to be for him.

So Jesus by his life and example of how to live and love revealed the dynamics of the Father within us all, so we could behave as we were made, to behave: to love the Father within and to live and love our fellow man, as ourselves, in the same way. That is the Takeaway of all the goodness that has been amassed throughout the record of mankind contained in all the Holy Books ever written by man.

Remember the analogy of the dynamo I gave in Post # 119? The tools with which one is born, that is the Father dormant-ready, so that all there is of Good is available to the man who is available to all there is of Good, if you let him; in other words, the Father within includes your brain, memory and sensory perception consciousness. The son expresses the understanding for which those tools within the son(humanity) evolved into our human design.

It doesn’t matter whether religious people debate or debase me, they same religious people did exactly the same thing to Jesus because his preach did not have anything in common with their tradition and most of what I have learned, is from him, in the same spirit. The downtrodden to be set free are the religious believers in thrall to the tradition of ritual nonsense, the tyranny of religion and religious interpretation that has changed very little since the days of Jesus.

You also have not said anything contrary to the statement you made in Post 134 :

“Your observation is not correct…….”

even after I corrected your error in reading my post wrongly.

We can’t just jump from one discourse to another without patching false statements as the dialogue progresses. If we leave those false statements stand with acknowledging them, there is no moving forward.

Do you know the difference between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John’s, or misunderstood the question? I didn’t ask about John’s baptism, I asked about Jesus’ baptism. Neither was I quoting scripture when I asked you how all righteousness was fulfilled in the baptism of Jesus. If we are going to understand baptism, we should at least first understand what the baptism of Jesus is. That is why I started with the baptism of Jesus, which is; His death, burial, and resurrection (Luke 12:50). Ironically, you answered correctly how the baptism of Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, but without scriptural understanding of what was the baptism of Jesus.

I am not offended by your comments, but you are entirely off base. I don’t know where you get the idea that I believe in something mystical except to say it appears you have a tendency to size me up and place your own judgment upon me.

The idea that you think I am determined to believe in and convince you of “the mystical” when we are baptized with water is a perfect example of this. This idea comes only from you, not me.

You repeatedly have put a label on me and then made a false argument as if it was my theology. It would be helpful if you refrained from continuing this practice by asking me for clarity what I believe instead of attaching “uninformed and unconfirmed tags’ onto me. For sake of clarity and in hopes you understand what you’ve been doing let me give you some examples. I believe God does a spiritual work that He ordained through the waters of baptism; therefore, you claim I believe that a mystical hokey-pokey takes place. I never said that, nor do I believe that. The following questions are meant as examples of how the reverse could be said about you, but not as statements about what I believe about your belief: Did you receive the Holy Spirit without any evidence other than some belief that some hokey-pokey and mystical happened? Did you see the Holy Spirit when He baptized you with His Spirit? Did you here any sound originating from the Holy Spirit when you received the infilling of Him? If not, then why are you so determined to believe something mystical happened that you somehow ended up with the Holy Spirit in you? Did it really happen or is it a mystical belief?
Do you see my point? I hope so.

I assure you that I don’t believe in “the mystical”. I don’t view baptism is a ritual that requires a verbal formula of some kind or another whereby someone’s words perform magic “abra cadabra” either. On the other hand, I don’t agree with you that it was introduced as an ordinance and some kind of custom commanded to be observed through ritual practices. I believe God does a spiritual work that He ordained through the waters of baptism and, unlike you, I believe it is part and parcel of the gospel of Jesus Christ that clearly states repentance towards God and baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins is true. It’s not mystical. It’s a supernatural work of God He ordained in His sovereignty, whereby the body of flesh of the repented sinners, that He supernaturally formed out of the dust of the ground, is united and clothed with Christ . . . and I have the scriptures that overwhelmingly support this claim(I will do so in detail later – I have a life too). The work that takes place allows God to look upon us, as He did when were brought Adam forth in creation; sinless, without spot or wrinkle, covered with the atonement, Jesus Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. When we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27) God no longer sees ouir sins, He only sees a reflection of His own image, He sees Christ. The scriptures, foreseeing the atoning work of Christ and the God covering He would give us in through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, preached the gospel beforehand when God covered Adam and Eves sin with the animals God sacrificed to cover them (Gen 3:21). The scriptures preached, beforehand, man cannot cover his own sins (Gen 3:7), but God would provide a covering for you. Just as it was in (Gen 3:7 and 3:21), man cannot cover his own sins, but he can put on the covering of Christ that God provided through the waters of baptism (Gal 3:27).

I am asking you, again, to have an open mind and discuss these things with conceptualizing what I believe. I will always support my theology with scripture and if something comes up that I don’t have scripture to support it, I will then clarify my belief is based on my opinion, not scripture and therefore is subject to being completely wrong, but could be right. I will never bank on my salvation on an opinion I cannot properly support with scripture.

I apologize for making you feel rushed, but the answer was very simple and had you realized the death, burial, and resurrection is the literal baptism of Jesus, you would have easily been able to respond to this question.

The comments you made about John’s baptism would be found inadequate because they lack scriptural support to prove your theology. I understand, however, that you felt rushed and couldn’t take the time to unpack it. I want to discuss why John’s believers were baptized and why Jesus came to John to be baptized and why His Father was so well pleased upon Him being baptized into John’s baptism of repentance, but let’s set that aside for now. This is a deep subject so you will need time to properly present the scriptures that support your theology.

I would like to address John 3:3-10 very soon. As you could imagine, my take will be different that the one you presented. Again, I realize you gave an opinion without unpacking it, so I am willing to hear you out, but if you prefer, I will go first.

Kevin, Luke 12:50 ? I misunderstood you, I thought you were talking about John’s baptism of Jesus ? Jesus was using the word “baptism” figuratively here. He was going to be plunged into the most excruciating death and raised to newness of life. So in that sense, Yes, Jesus’ baptism in Luke 12 is a work of God. Water baptism that we partake in is symbolic of the finished work of Christ but Christ is the essence and source of our salvation.

Just as Noah was saved by the grace of God, figuratively the water saved them. The same goes with baptism, it is a figure, a symbol, a shadow of our salvation in Christ but not the essence, which is Christ Himself. We have graduated from the symbols and shadows of the Old testament to the reality which is the person of Jesus Christ.

If I concede that water baptism is necessary of salvation then we are saved by Christ + baptism. So we are back to being saved by works again and are off base. Christ’s “baptism”, His finished work on the cross and His resurrection is what saves us, nothing else. Our baptism is our work and therefore cannot save us in of itself. By taking the bigger picture approach of salvation apart from works, we can deduce that our water baptism cannot effect our salvation. It is our faith in Christ that saves us, the water has no power to save. If an unbeliever were to be baptized would he be saved ? Of course not. Baptism is symbolic of the spiritual reality that has already occurred in our heart.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Kevin, let me try to put it in modern terms so you can see where I’m coming from.

We often use the term “baptism by fire” when someone has to deal with an extremely difficult situation that will overwhelm them. It’s just a word we use to denote that we are deep into something or some circumstance. Jesus knew he had a difficult task ahead and he was dreading it and even anxious perhaps to get it over with.

The word baptism means to be fully immersed. I can use it in every day language in many situations. Jesus is using here to denote the immensity of what He was going to through.

I have never heard anybody speak of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as Christ’s baptism. Based on Luke 12:50, yes in a sense it is, but again you are making more of it than what it is. You can ask any Christian on the planet about Jesus’ baptism and they will refer to John’s baptism of Jesus and not Luke 12:50.

At this point in the Lord’s ministry, He was enjoying great popularity (cf. Matt. 4:23-25; 9:8; Mark 3:7; Luke 5:15-16). As He descended from the mountain where He had appointed the Twelve to be His apostles, He was confronted once again by a great crowd. Luke said that this multitude came from both Judea and Jerusalem as well as from the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon. They came, like multitudes before them, to hear His word and to see His works. While Matthew’s record seems to indicate that the Lord withdrew from the multitude so as to minister to the twelve apostles privately, Luke’s record makes it clear that Christ/Messiah found a level place from which He could address a great multitude of disciples. The disciples, then, were not only the Twelve but the multitudes who had assembled to hear Him teach. Multitudes had heard Jesus’ message that the kingdom was near. The message had been substantiated by the miracles that He had performed. These multitudes were curious and desired to see and hear for themselves the things about which they had heard. Thus far they had come to no conviction about the person of Christ and the truth that He proclaimed. Christ viewed them as outside the kingdom and offered them a way of access into the kingdom (Matt. 7:13-23). He warned them against trusting in the teaching of the Pharisees (sand) and urged them to build on His word (the rock) (Matt. 7:24-29). John the Baptist, in announcing the advent of the King and the nearness of the kingdom, had demanded righteousness as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom. John made the same demands that the Old Testament made. Christ, in offering Himself as King, made the same demands. Christ said only the righteous could enter Messiah’s kingdom. This concept was never challenged by the Pharisees, with their emphasis upon the traditions of the law; by the Sadducees, who were concerned with the observances of the ceremonies of the law; or by the people themselves. The only question that arose was that of what kind of righteousness was necessary for entrance into Messiah’s kingdom. As a result of the preaching of Christ, the nation was faced with two differing concepts of righteousness. One was the righteousness of organized Judaism, which taught that a man was righteous if he attended the feasts, observed the rituals of sacrifice, and observed the traditions of the Pharisees. On the other hand, Christ preached a righteousness which came as a result of faith in His own person. Righteousness could not be earned by the works of people but had to be received as a gift from God. A conflict, then, arose between Christ and the Pharisees concerning righteousness. The multitudes that came to hear Jesus teach did not need to be told that righteousness was necessary for entrance into the kingdom. They would readily have acknowledged this truth, for Judaism taught it. The question in their minds would be, “What is righteousness?” “What kind of righteousness does the law demand?” “Would Pharisaic righteousness admit us into Messiah’s kingdom?” Christ addressed Himself to these questions as He spoke to the curious who were debating the issue of His person.

The theme of this discourse is found in Matthew 5:20: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Christ in this sermon repudiated Pharisaic righteousness as providing a basis for acceptance by Messiah into His kingdom. He offered Himself as the only basis for righteousness that would admit one into His kingdom.

(2) The subjects

Matthew 5:3-16; Luke 6:20-26

In the sermon itself Christ described the characteristics of a righteous man (Matt. 5:3-16). He repudiated the Pharisaic interpretation of the law (5:17-48) and correctly interpreted the Mosaic law as showing what God demanded. Next, He rejected the Pharisaic practices of the law (Matt. 6:1-7:6) and pointed out that the Pharisees, in an attempt to constitute themselves righteous, actually violated the demands of the law. Finally, He instructed those who desired to enter the kingdom (Matt. 7:7-29). We conclude, then, that the Sermon on the Mount was our Lord’s exposition of the holiness of God. It set forth the demands that a holy God made on those who would be accepted by Him and received into Messiah’s kingdom.

(5) The two foundations

Matthew 7:24-8:1; Luke 6:46-49

The truth that Christ presented in this sermon necessitated a decision concerning the truth of His words and His Person. The one who accepted His word and trusted His person was likened to one who built a house on a rock. When that house was tested, it stood up against every test because it was on a secure foundation. On the other hand, one who built a house without a proper foundation found that his house was swept away when the test came. The destiny of those who were hearing Jesus’ words would be determined by their response to His message. He thus again invited this multitude to forsake the Pharisees’ doctrines, interpretations, and practices. He asked them to accept His word and to put faith in Him. Thus Jesus answered the question of how good one has to be to enter the kingdom. His answer was very plain: one must be as good as God is. One must conform to His goodness and holiness as revealed in the law. The Pharisees’ system could not provide this righteousness, but Christ offered Himself as Savior-Sovereign and invited people to put faith in His person and word.

This teaching was so different from anything the multitudes had ever heard that they were “amazed at his teaching” (Matt. 7:28). They were amazed at the content of His words and also the authority with which they were spoken.*

*A STUDY OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The Words & Works of Jesus Christ by J. Dwight Pentecost
II. The Authentication Of The King
B. The Authority Of The King
pp. 171-172, 188.

I need you to prove your theology with the use of scripture. It’s not acceptable to make a claim that baptism is a work that man does and then refute baptism by stating doing good works cannot save us. You must have proof of scripture to support your view that baptism is a work done by man alone and God has no part in it. Likewise, claiming something is symbolic is not proof that that baptism is a work done by man alone and God has no part in it. Nor can arguing the water has no power to save, when no one claimed it did. That statement means nothing.

The New Testament is literal, not types and shadows. The OT gives us the figurative type and shadows as examples of the spiritual work of God in the New Testament. 1 Peter 3:20-21 couldn’t be a better example of it. Noah was saved through the water because God destroyed the world of sin in it. Had God not done that, Noah would eventually have been overtaken by sin. Peter is using this example as to why baptism with water into Christ saves you today. It’s by putting your faith in Christ in answer of a good conscience to God, being united with Christ through the waters of baptism, and it is effective because Jesus rose from the grave. Romans 6:3-5 supports the same.

Jesus literally saw His baptism as His literal death, burial, and resurrection. The definition of baptism of Christ is His literal death, burial, and resurrection, I agree most people don’t know what the baptism of Jesus is and would refer to John’s baptism, but that only proves most people don’t know and/or understand the scriptures. It does not prove anything other than that.

Again, you accuse me of making more of the scriptures when I view the opposite is true. Every scripture I’ve given you that refutes your theology, you make less of the scriptures by minimizing them through analogies and weak arguments and declarations that I am reading too much into the scriptures. You’ve even gone so far as to throw out the book of Acts because it is a history book and, as such, you reasoned it untrustworthy to build upon the doctrine of the gospel. Well, I agree it’s a history book and, as such, it gives us the historical account of Peter’s preaching the gospel of Christ on the Day of Pentecost. After all, whom could we trust more than Peter? He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven wasn’t he? Filled up and overflowing with the Holy Spirit, Peter stood up and preached the gospel given to him by Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost. I trust this historical record, do you? He preached the gospel of Jesus Christ and he preached to those that became believers to repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins . . . Do you really want to say I am reading too much into his words recorded in Acts 2:38? Or do you, like me, believe Peter shared the keys to the kingdom of heaven that day? Do you, like me trust that Peter knew the gospel of Jesus Christ? Historically, a man named Peter, freshly baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire preached the full gospel of Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost. I’ll take my chances on what he preached is correct and obey the commands of the gospel he gave. History recorded it, and it cannot be explained away because you don’t believe it.

You say Jesus’ baptism is in a sense His death, burial, and resurrection. Really? The scriptures say Jesus’s baptism was only in the sense that it was in the literal sense of His death, burial, and resurrection. There is no other meaning to add to or take way from it.

See Mark 10:38. Was Jesus telling James and John they were going to be baptized again with water? No. James and John had been believers and witnessed the gospel beginning with the baptism of John, then became disciples of Christ. This means John would already have baptized them into their own repentance as they confessed their sins, and would they already have been baptized as disciples of Jesus. The baptism Jesus referred to as His baptism that He would undergo was His literal baptism; His death, burial, resurrection. Again, most Christian don’t know this.

Again, you have provided no scriptural proof to support your theology of baptism solely being a work of God. You have torn it out and away from the gospel of Jesus Christ without any justifiable scripture to support it. It appears to me, the only work you are doing concerning water baptism is removing it from the gospel. Please prove me otherwise with scripture and I’ll believe it? The various analogies offered up are not proof of anything.

Let me ask something and maybe it will help clear things up. Are you saying the reason water baptism is a work of man because the gospel says it is something we must do to have our sins forgiven, therefore it is something we must do to be saved, and if it is something we do, it’s a work of man and man can do nothing to save himself, therefore it is not a work of God? If so, then repentance must be understood in the same way and following that logic all the way out, so would believing because we must believe and we must repent and if it is something we must do, the it’s a work of man…Believing and obeying the gospel is not and attempt to earn salvation, therefore it is not a work of man to earn salvation. It’s faith that God knows what He is doing and we believe Him and His gospel.

Most Christians don’t know John baptized all of the apostles that were present in the upper room into their own repentance as they confessed their sins. As such, they became handpicked disciples of Christ as Jesus moved in and out amongst the disciples of John from the beginning of His own ministry. As disciple of Jesus, they were baptized by Jesus and / or by other disciples of Jesus. As such, they began baptizing Disciples of Christ early in Christ’s ministry. As such, they brought several years of experience of baptizing disciples of Jesus with them on the Day of Pentecost. It was witnesses such as these who had repented and been baptized from the beginning of John’s preaching of the gospel, were baptized by John, baptized by Jesus, and themselves were baptizing other disciples of Jesus, and were also baptized all together with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. They stood together with Peter as he stood up and preached the gospel message.

I sincerely ask you to consider if there is a more reliable testimony, as to what the gospel of Jesus Christ is, within the scriptures than the one given by these disciples on the Day of Pentecost. Peter, and the other eleven, were believers and witnesses of the gospel from the beginning of it being preached and at the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1-2 provides the record of events and the first gospel message when the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out. This is the message that we need to believe and obey. It’s straightforward and we can read it for ourselves (Acts 2:14-40). Pleas ask yourself, do you really want to take part in convoluting the gospel message by claiming the book of Acts is not suitable for understanding doctrine? Do you really want to follow after another wind of doctrine that usurps the message these firsthand believers believed and preached? Each one of us must choose to believe it or not. If we believe it, then obedience comes from faith, not from works we need to do to earn salvation.

The following scriptures support the chronology of the events stated above:

(Mark 1:4, Acts 1:4-5, 8, Matt 3:6) John was the first to preach the gospel message. He preached the Messiah was soon coming, a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:1-4), and a promise the Messiah would baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). All who believed were baptized in their repentance as they confessed their sins (Mark 1:5, Matt 3:6).

(Acts1:21-22, 23, John 1:35-42)Acts 1:14, 12-14, 15, John 7:5) To replace Judas and become the twelfth apostle, Peter laid out the requirements; The person must be a disciple that had been with the other eleven apostle beginning with the baptism of John and also when Jesus started moving in and out amongst them from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 1:21-22, John 1:35-42). There were 120 disciples to choose from in the upper room (Acts 1:15), including the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:12-15). Even though the brothers of Jesus were in the upper room (Acts 1:14), only two of the 120 disciples met the requirements to be the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:23). Why didn’t the brothers of Jesus qualify to be apostles? Jesus’ brothers were not believers from the beginning of John’s baptism (John 7:5).

(Acts 1:21-22, Mark 1:1-4, Mark 1:5, Matt 3:6, John 3: 26 John 4:1-2) As disciples of John, the apostles would have been baptized by John (Acts 1:21-22, Mark 1:1-4) as they confessed their sins (Mark 1:5, Matt 3:6). When they became disciples of Christ, they would have been baptized by Him (John 3:26). As baptized disciples of Jesus, they would have been baptizing new disciples of Jesus (John 4:1-2). The apostles were already baptizing for several years by the time they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This should leave no doubt as to what the apostles, being firsthand believers and witnesses of the gospel of Jesus Christ from the beginning, knew, what they believed, who needed to be baptized, why they were baptizing and how they were supposed to do it. The had first row seats to the teaching of the gospel directly from Jesus Christ Himself!

(Acts 2:14-40). Peter preached the gospel of Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40) and when the people believed, he commanded them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins . . .

Nobody earned their salvation on the Day of Pentecost. It was freely given to them when they believed and with faith in Christ, heeded the message of the gospel in obedience to Peter’s call to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Just a twist of lemon for you to consider in your dialogue, nobody “receives” ‘the Spirit’ at some point, brought about by; say, a baptism or “the Spirit comes upon you”, uh uh. This Spirit is something you are born with, like the “Father within you” it is already there, inside, within, waiting only for the trigger. And when the right trigger comes along you can ID with it; presto, it, the “Spirit”, responds………… that trigger is “Truth”………………not belief, not baptism not anything else but Truth.

Belief is non-knowledge, it cannot be a stand alone event but it can be truth but it can also be untrue and baptism, for example is merely a ritual. And why is Jesus correct? Because he demonstrated that Way, lived that Life and spoke that Truth. “I am the way, the life and the truth.

Said the Lord Jesus, your word is truth. It contains those vital principles that must govern man’s relationship to the Father and the Father’s relationship to man. Sanctify them Father, through this truth. As thou Father has sent me into the world even so have I sent them into the world.

Thank you for your post of Matt 5 and Matt 7 in Post # 154. These two chapters and Matthew chapter 23 are arguably the three most important chapters in the New Testament Gospels on Behavior, Righteousness and Deceitfulness.

BAPTISM SIMPLIFIED:
The practical application of water in cleansing the body translated into the ritual application of which the origins of baptism might be found in the book of Leviticus where the Levite priests were commanded to perform a symbolic cleansing in water before and after performing their priestly duties. Leviticus 16:4.

This same ritualism was used to symbolically cleanse the mind from the cares, riches and pleasures of the world that the masses of people generally focused on which led uncontrolled fulfillment of the desires of the flesh(body) and in turn undermined and neglected the weightier matters of the civil society: justice, mercy and faithfulness and the spiritual virtues of care and compassion, love and forgiveness, for ourselves and for our fellowman.

Thus baptism was the symbolic transition of the focus from the flesh(body) to the mind(spirit). The transitional theme was the career of John The Baptist to express of the soon coming mission of Jesus, his cousin, whose mission when Jesus’ campaign began would focus primarily on the spiritual aspect of humanity without neglecting to put it into practice for the remission of sin, to slow sin down and eventually to cease from sin when a New Kingdom Focus would take hold and dominate the world societies. As we all know that has not happened yet in much of the world but it does declare its presence in having good effect in some places and countries in the so called civilized world.

Indeed, a big task then and a big task now especially when the commerce of six six six and sex sex sex is threatened. Climate Action on Climate Change is a good example of how big the task is when there is still so much deny deny deny.

Kevin, I want to be clear that I am not against water baptism. I have been baptized and I think it is a normal and natural thing that a “Christian” does. I emphasize “Christian” (saved people) because unbelievers (unsaved people) do not get baptized. I would encourage new believers to be baptized and explain to them the scriptural precedent for water baptism. Theologically though, I will still maintain that a person is saved when he believes and puts faith in Jesus Christ and that baptism is an “after the fact” outward expression of the spiritual reality that takes place when a person is born again of the Spirit.

Verses with No mention of Water Baptism

Here are some scriptures that speak of salvation with no mention of water baptism. If water baptism was the means for obtaining forgiveness of sins would you agree that the apostles were negligent in not mentioning this in the epistles ?

Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

In Romans our faith is compared to Abraham’s who trusted in what God could do based on God’s promise. No mention of water baptism just faith/believe (trust).

In Galatians we see that even in the old testament the gospel was preached through Abraham in lieu of future events that God had ordained through Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s offspring, Jesus Christ, all nations would be blessed. How ? By faith. Notice that God preached the gospel to Abraham way back even before Moses when there was no water baptism. The gospel essence is Jesus Christ Himself and nothing else. The gospel message spans all of human history, old and new testaments and is contingent on only 1 thing, faith. The faith response is universal and is how the OT saints were saved (Hebrews 11) and how we are saved. No mention of water baptism to obtain forgiveness of sins.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Forgiveness of sins is by blood not water. Our salvation is a matter of the heart. Romans 10 illustrates this beautifully stressing “believing in your heart”. Again, if water baptism was critical to this exchange it surely would have been mentioned. Rather, we see that what happens at salvation happens in our heart (or spirit), the most deepest part of our being. As for obedience, verse 16 shows that believing the gospel is obeying the gospel. This puts us in the position of receiving and not doing works in order to be saved.

The scriptures that do mention water baptism does so in a figurative sense just as in 1Peter with the parallel to Noah’s Ark. In Colossians 2 our salvation is likened to circumcision and water baptism in subsequent verses. Again, this is figurative language which we must distinguish from the reality of salvation and the forgiveness of sins that occurs when one puts faith in Christ. Otherwise we must also teach that you must be circumcised to be saved.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The Book of Acts and Cornelius

Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,
Act 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
Act 10:41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

I have not thrown out the book of Acts, contrary to what you said. The encounter with Cornelius is a good example that shows water baptism does not forgive sins. Peter preached the gospel to these people and said that “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name”. These Gentiles received the Holy Spirit immediately after they heard and subsequently believed the gospel. Where these people saved at this point? If you say no, you must go back and re-read all the epistles about being united with Christ in the Spirit and that we are sealed with the Spirit of promise when we are saved. These people were forgiven and saved people apart from water baptism. There is no doubt about this because they received the Holy Spirit, with tongues no less ! Again, water baptism has its place, and Peter goes on to say who could “forbid” water for baptism. These people went on to be water baptized subsequent to them being saved. Verse 48 uses the word commanded which is not the best English word for the original Greek. You could look that up if you wish (or I can refer you to a reference, just ask) Regardless, we are not saved by obeying commands to be baptized lest we make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Acts 2:38 “for”

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Well here it is, Acts 2:38, the UPC staple, the mother of all scriptures for the UPC !!!

On first glance it appears that water baptism effects or causes the forgiveness of sins. Based on the epistles and especially Acts 10, there seems to be a contradiction here. First off, the scriptures we are reading in English are translations from the original Greek. So sometimes the best or most accurate words are not chosen which causes confusion. The Greek word translated as “for” is not the best translation for the original Greek word “eis”. A better translation is “in” or “into”. You can use Google translate to confirm my claim. Based on this we can’t take Acts 2:38 or any other one scripture and build a doctrine or as in the case of the UPC, build a denomination on it. I would rather build my church on John 3:16 if I had to pick a scripture..now that’s Gold !

Mark 16

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Well from this verse it seems that you got me. I believe baptism was added to distinguish the “even the demons believe” believers versus the true believers that believe from the heart. However, what is not said is as interesting as what is said. Notice that those that do not believe are damned. It doesn’t mention those that believe and are not baptized. We can speculate all day on this one and at the end of the day neither you nor I will be able to make definite claims based on this scripture alone. What the scripture does say is that unbelief results in damnation.

A Word about Repentance

I just want clarify what I think repentance is and what it isn’t. On one your posts you mentioned confessing your sins. I agree that as sinners before salvation we come to the end of ourselves and confess that we have sinned against God, I think you would agree. What repentance is not is recounting all our sins to God and apologizing for them akin to what the Catholic church does. We don’t obtain forgiveness through apologies or keeping short accounts with God. Repentance is when we have a change of mind which is what the word repentance means in the original Greek. It is in this change of mind where we acknowledge our condition and turn to the only solution – Jesus. As in the case of the Jews at the time, they were to turn from their own righteousness that was by the law and submit to the righteousness of God which is by faith. So to be clear, biblical repentance that leads to salvation is not through apologies, or by changing our behavior. It is part and parcel with our faith when we first decide to turn from sin towards God. Enough said.

Mar 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
Mar 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Hypothetical Circumstances

I would like to engage you in your favorite thing now, “critical thinking”. Sometimes some simple critical thought or thought experiments can help us think clearly and rationally. It can also help us resolve apparent contradictions with the scriptures. Again, we have translated copies of the originals into English and no translation of the bible is perfect so I think it’s permitted to use some common sense or we might wind up like Michael Rood and never shave our beard 🙂 To prevent the agnostics from jumping in here, the common sense that I am talking about doesn’t give us permission to create our own theology and claim Jesus never rose from the dead because that just can’t happen in the natural world.

What about those persons that for some medical or physical reason cannot be baptized ? Are they excluded from the Kingdom of God ? I know this is only hypothetical, but using common sense, this would make no sense and would be contrary to the character of kindness of God. Moreover how would that person feel if they were told that they needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins but they could not ? They would probably feel rejected by God and maybe even cursed. This is very cruel in my opinion and flys in he face of everything I know about the amazing grace of God.

When I was a part of the UPC (long ago), I visited nursing homes and we preached water baptism in Jesus Name. There were a couple of individuals who were very elderly and sickly that we insisted needed to be baptized fully submersed in water in Jesus Name. (We had learned earlier they were baptized in the trinity formula). The nursing home would not accommodate us as it was impossible to get these sickly men submersed without risking death or serious harm to them. Eventually another preacher came to the nursing home to discuss this with us and accused of trying to “obey rules and regulations” and that this was not the gospel. I disagreed with him at the time, but in retrospect he was right ! What idiots we were to try to force these dear souls to be submersed in water thinking we were doing God’s will. These men believed in God with all their heart and I have no doubt they are with the Lord today. This is a true story.

Another hypothetical situation I may have mentioned is the person who has believed in the gospel and gets killed on his way to his baptism. Is that person saved or did random chance or Satan foil God’s plan to save him ? Again, I know, this is hypothetical, but it’s just here as food for thought.

Why is excluding water baptism from salvation important ?

A soon as we consent that baptism is the means for obtaining forgiveness of sins, there is theological baggage that will come with that. For example, we will start to legislate how we baptize. Some will say it is by full immersion, other will be happy with sprinkling. I know the full immersion crowd wins here but it causes division nonetheless as your know. Then should we be baptized “in Jesus Name” or in the “name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” ? Again, divisions are caused because of this and problems.

More important than the above, the end game is for people to believe and know Jesus Christ and He alone should be the focus. Going back to Paul’s discourse about baptism in 1 Corinthians, he was determined to preach the gospel primarily and not concern himself with performing baptisms. This proves that preaching the gospel saves and not baptism otherwise Paul would not make the distinction between the gospel and water baptism. If performing baptisms was efficacious to one’s eternal destiny do you not think Paul would take it upon himself to baptize ? This reminds me of time when our church group went to Florida (UPC) for some meeting and our people were baptizing people left and right although I didn’t baptize anyone myself. We thought we we were something special, everyone commented and compared how many people each of them baptized. It was a real show of pride and arrogance all because of the belief that water baptism forgives sins.

The focus of the gospel should always be Jesus Christ and Him alone. Look at the distraction water baptism has caused on this post ! This is the second time water baptism has resulted in a huge debate on this blog, the other time another person tried to convince me that it had to be “in Jesus name” or it didn’t count. I think we are expending a lot of energy here but I hope in the end it will help us grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, otherwise it is a huge waste of time.

Based on your view of the gospel, there will be many other areas of disagreement between which you may have touched on here and there such as the following….

I think I am mentally exhausted at this point Kevin. If my arguments cannot shed any light or insight to your views, that’s fine. I am not trying to win an argument although it would be nice 🙂 As they say, iron sharpens iron. Keeping searching, keep seeking and know that your salvation is secure. God’s grace is big enough for both of our biggest theological blunders.

Naz,
We’ll just agree to disagree. I would point a few things out though

1) losing your salvation -it is possible, we all have a free will, you must be blind not to see
2) your concept of the beginning of salvation – is repentance
3) Speaking in tongues – read John 3:8 and since you like greek, look at the word “sound” and apply it to the sound all that are born of spirit
4) your exclusive knowledge of the “baptism of Christ” this is offensive, I could say the same about your exclusive view of salvation
5) John baptizing the disciples in the upper room (did you read Acts 1:21-23?
6) When God looks at us He only sees Christ – you misunderstood, I said he sees a new creature in His own image, Christ is the image of God)
7) Acts – throw out or find a way to change the scriptures is not ok?
8) critical thinking – I agree
9) favorite fast food restaurant 🙂
10) favorite football team 🙂

Kevin, I tried to be light by adding some comedy to take the edge off of my post and all I get in return is comments that I must be blind, snarky remarks about using Greek and accusations about throwing out scriptures again.

I’m sure your mama didn’t teach you to have bad manners, did she ? How old are you ?

Naz,
I apologize for that, but I was offended by the “my exclusive knowledge of baptism” remark. A highly offensive comment. We may disagree, but I shared my theology with you in an honest and earnest way and supported it with scripture. For you to make a remark like that was very off putting to me. I am not make an excuse, I just wanted to explain why I did it.

The chasm is big, but at least I will look at scriptures and comment why I agree or don’t based on the scriptures you provided. You haven’t haven’t done the same. Your last post provides scripture absent of baptism to fallaciously argue it proves baptism isn’t important because it doesn’t mention it. The counterpoint and knockout punch to this fallacy is; everyone in the churches that the epistles were written to, were baptized through the water in the name of Jesus Christ, therefore it must have been extremely important to salvation and believing in Christ. Is it possible that instead of looking for the answers, you look to prove yourself right? At this point, it’s clear that you simply don’t want to believe baptism is a work of God., regardless of the overwhelming evidence in the scriptures. This is why I agreed to disagree.

I’m not crazy about the UPC either, but they didn’t write Acts 2:38. They might be wrong about a lot of things, but the message of the gospel couldn’t be any clearer than what Peter preached while HE WAS FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The only way you cannot agree with this scripture and all of Acts 2:14-40 is to flat out deny it in any way you can. And that is exactly what you’ve done. Now you quoted Mark 16:16 and because you can’t reckon it with your theology, you have an easy answer; it’s interpolated! Really? It’s that easy to defeat the word of God?

Your take on Paul not putting emphasis on baptism is also way, way, out of context so you can fit it into your theology. Paul stated what we all know; all of them were baptized, yes, everyone of them were baptized right? They were putting emphasis on the person baptizing them and whom they followed the teaching/preaching of, instead of who died for them and whom they were united with in baptism; Jesus Christ. Paul could not have made it more that clear baptism is not about the baptizer, nor about the water, as you like to fallaciously argue, it’s about Christ. He made it clear we are to follow Christ. You can’t fallaciously argue that there are believers in any of the epistles that were not baptized into Christ. All of them were. It’s true and yet, to you, it means nothing.

Perhaps the greatest chasm is this; I don’t always like what the scripture message is, but I would rather accept it, than look away from it. No matter how many fallacious or clever arguments and analogies you come up with, it is the word of God that stands forever.

“That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of the Messiah, and members in particular.” (1 Corinthians 12:25-27)

QUOTE Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Well here it is, Acts 2:38, the UPC staple, the mother of all scriptures for the UPC !!!

On first glance it appears that water baptism effects or causes the forgiveness of sins. Based on the epistles and especially Acts 10, there seems to be a contradiction here. First off, the scriptures we are reading in English are translations from the original Greek. So sometimes the best or most accurate words are not chosen which causes confusion. The Greek word translated as “for” is not the best translation for the original Greek word “eis”. A better translation is “in” or “into”. You can use Google translate to confirm my claim. Based on this we can’t take Acts 2:38 or any other one scripture and build a doctrine or as in the case of the UPC, build a denomination on it. I would rather build my church on John 3:16 if I had to pick a scripture..now that’s Gold ! UNQUOTE

#1) Acts 2:38 was not written by the UPC (they might be cultish, but they didn’t author this scripture. Acts 2:38 is from the mouth of God)
#2) Stop the nonsense, Acts 2:14- 40 preaches the one and only true gospel of Jesus Christ) It Acts 2:38 is included as part of the gospel and it says what it says and it’s very clear about what it says.
#3) You claim the UPC built a denomination on Acts 2:38 (the word of God), and it appears, you have a built a religion on the sane scripture, a religion seeking to deny the part of the gospel preached in Acts 2:”14-40, in which you deny, by every effort possible to explain away the part called vs. 38).
#2) You argue that the epistles didn’t consider baptism to be important, yet everyone (AND I MEAN EVERYONE) in the epistles was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
#3) I hope you are not offended and angry at this point. I am only telling it like it is.
#4) You listed and identified 7 issues that I soundly and roundly supported with scripture, that you opposed, yet you had no answer whereby you could oppose my theology with scripture. It’s disappointing because I told you that I was open to new understanding through the scriptures and I asked you to be open as well.
QUOTE:
1) losing your salvation
2) your concept of the beginning of salvation
3) Speaking in tongues
4) your exclusive knowledge of the “baptism of Christ”
5) John baptizing the disciples in the upper room
6) When God looks at us He only sees Christ
7) Acts 19
UNQUOTE.

You said “I think I am mentally exhausted at this point Kevin. If my arguments cannot shed any light or insight to your views, that’s fine. I am not trying to win an argument although it would be nice 🙂 As they say, iron sharpens iron”

Really, Iron sharpens iron? I agree, but you didn’t draw any iron, you came to a sword fight with a pocket knife, meaning you didn’t use scripture to support your theology, nor refute mine. I want my iron to be sharpened by another, but . . .where’s the iron in the your fallacious renderings?

I apologize if you are offended by the frankness of my thoughts, but I am comfortable with expressing them to you as I mindful with awareness that I will answer for every word I said to you today (Matt 12:36).

Adgie,
Post 171 – No one was baptized with water in the upper room. According to Acts 1;21-23, the eleven apostles were believers and therefore witnesses of the gospel beginning with the baptism of John. These eleven and only two others (Joseph and Mathias) were disciples of John’s preaching. john preached a baptism of repentance, therefore only 13 disciples of the 120 in the upper room were disciples of John and as John’s disciples, they would have been baptized by him.

Post 172; Jews and Christians have the Bible to base their belief in the eternal God. What are you basing your belief in father cosmos and mother nature?

Re: Post 172. The same mind that imagined the writings about the Gods in Holy Books is the same mind that imagines that Father Cosmos and Mother Nature are the Gods eternal of what we believe today about human entrance into the world. My writings are therefore equal to the Holy Books without anything more than the imagination inspired by the same spirit that dwelleth in me that dwelleth in them.

I do not seek proselytes to support my spirit as the ancients sought such to support their spirit and while the writings Jews and Christians have to base their belief in the eternal God on, you and others have my writings and other writings to base the eternal Father Cosmos and Mother Nature belief on.

Is there any difference in the spirit today from the spirit of the ancients? Is the spirit today any different than the Spirit of yestercentury; no except, that the spirit today, guides writers today, who have more knowledge than any ancient had privy to in yestercentury and that makes the big difference; among other things, when claiming the earth is flat, when tides turn oceans into sandbars instead of parting the waters with a theatrical staff, when medicines cure diseases and pathogen infection instead of prayers and fastings, when medications control epilepsy instead of exorcised from demon possession, when magic tricks are common among elementary youngsters without claiming to be child prophets performing miracles from the Gods. There is no supernatural paranormal activity that can be detected but plenty of frauds perpetrated trying to prove their existence unsuccessfully for tens of thousands of centuries which ancient religious leaders used to prove the existence of their imagined Gods to the uneducated minds of peers.

All the ways believers attempt to prove the Gods can be just as easily used to favor Father Cosmos and Mother Nature and even more so because we know where our knowledge lies and we pursue the course while supernaturalists know only how to fabricate more and more ludicrous ways to justify non knowledge. We have the universe to function within, to see, explore, research, experience what we know and live within and believers have ……………..ancient illiterate, uneducated patriarchal men who knew the expanse and awesomeness of the Gods before they had knowledge to invent the wheel, understand the meteorological function of weather and killed their children to appease the Gods or offered the children in death to ensure a bumper crop and believed that the Gods made known to men their divine wishes and wisdom through nightly dreams of which Joseph was famous in Egyptian circles and Daniel how Daniel interpreted a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

Adjie,
The Bible has 66 books with 40 different writers, but only one author. The author is God and, through the 40 different writers, He spoke the words written in this book. We know God is the author because none of these writers contradict the others. WIth humans, this is impossible!

Kevin, your rantings and ravings about Acts 2:38 really take me back to when I used to talk like that too !

Really, it is amazing to me, I used to preach Acts 2:38 and water baptism just like you are doing now.

You have berated me more than Leo does ! At least he’s a heathen I can understand it coming from him, but you Kevin, you are a child of God ? That’s OK, I will not take offense, I understand your passion for the scriptures and the importance of knowing the truth.

All I can say is God’s grace is pretty radical and I hope one day you will be able to more fully appreciate that and perhaps some of the things I have tried to communicate, although I am not very good at putting my thoughts into words.

P.S. You neglected to comment on Cornelius. I was interested on what you had to say about that. Thanks for the discussion.

Have you ever considered why Peter said, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” (Acts 10:47) with why Peter said, “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Put your critical thinking cap on. Peter had no idea any of the gentiles would be baptized with the Holy Spirit that day and certainly not intended to baptize any gentiles with water in the name of the Lord either. Look at what happens, he preached the gospel, barely got started when he and the brethren became amazed the Holy Spirit filled the gentiles. At that moment, Peter and the other brethren understood God had granted repentance to the gentiles. This is the reason Peter said, who can refuse them the water and then ordered them to be baptized (Acts 10:47-48).

Look back to (Acts 10:33), Peter didn’t understand why he sent, it was Cornelius that explained to Peter he was sent to them so they could hear ALL what the Lord commanded him. Cornelius and his household didn’t hear all the commands until verse 48.

Now look at Peter explaining to the Jews what happened. Peter confirmed the same; he was sent to speak the words that would save them (Acts 11:13-15) (and remember Peter was told they needed to hear ALL the words that would save them Acts 10:33).

Peter explained “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:15-17).

We see Peter was obedient to the Lord and did everything he was commanded to do and because he preached and because the heard, and because they believed, the gentiles received the same gift as the Jews. Soooo, ask yourself, after all that took place and all that Peter did, what possibly could Peter be referring to in (Acts 11:17)? He had done it all, he had not stood in God’s way whatsoever, so what could it be that he now could see himself standing in God’s way of God’s repented people? The answer is in Acts (10:47-48). Peter understood they needed to be baptized into Christ for the completion of the remission of their repented life’s sins. The Jews knew what he meant and, now my brother, I hope you can see it too. Let us not stand in the way of the Lord and His ways, for they are higher than ours (read – Isa 55:8-9). Somehow, someway, God has ordained to make man a new creature in Christ through the water of baptism . . .

In closing, I meant to convey; Somehow and someway, God ordained man to be supernaturally born again of the flesh (meaning, supernaturally born of the father again, just as man was when God formed him out of the dust of the ground, perfect and in His own image) through the water of baptism (that which is flesh is flesh) and to supernaturally be born again(meaning, having the breath of life breathed into his nostril, that which is spirit is spirit) through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The type and shadow of man being born into creation is God made man out of flesh and spirit in His own image and likeness. To be born again, God has chosen to make a new creature in His own image and likeness according to the flesh and the Spirit.

Cheers, peace and goodwill to the one in whose hands this letter now rests. 🙂

You have such a soft shell. Of the people you like to quote, Paul, said this about the one you call heathen. hahaha 🙂
Rom 2:13 onwards:

“13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Heathens, Atheists, Infidels, Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by The Adjudicator

In other words: GOD IS KIND BUT NOT SOFT.

Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God.
When outsiders who have never heard of the law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that the law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to yes and no will become public knowledge on the day The Adjudicator makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.

Any points you want to niggle over, if not scripturally sound from Jesus may not be supported by Jesus and if that is the case, be careful because you are in the danger zone of subjective interpretation, not that subjective interpretation is inherently faulty but it needs to be looked at critically and that is no easier a task than an editor who edits his own writings. Common typos are almost always missed by the writer whereas an outside Editor has an objective eye and does not easily miss common typos where the subjective eye sees what is not there oftentimes because he reads as much what is in his mind than what he has written ion the page.

Now just clarity, consider the words explicit and implicit such as the subject of baptism as an explicit message and implicit message when used metaphorically:

Explicit

The word “explicit” means clear and fully expressed. If something is explicit, there is no question as to what it means, no hidden connotations and no room for misunderstanding. If a fact is explicit in a reading comprehension passage, it is stated outright. For example, if the first sentence of a story is “It was a dark and stormy night,” that is an explicit fact. There is no room for debate; the reader cannot be confused and think that the story is set on a sunny morning.

Implicit

If something is implicit, it is not expressly stated, but the reader understands it anyway through other clues in the text. For example, if a story begins with “The trees were swaying wildly outside Anne’s window as she prepared for bed, and the gutters were overflowing,” the reader can infer that it is probably dark, stormy and at night even though these facts are not explicitly stated. Implicit facts in reading comprehension also often involve the motivations of the characters so context is implicit and must be critically examined in the sense.

Naz please don’t be dismayed; Everyone is Everyman and Everyman has good inside. That applies to you and all who are trying to communicate the good as we see it.

A gentle response defuses anger,
Knowledge flows like spring water from the wise;
God doesn’t miss a thing—
he’s alert to good and evil alike.
Kind words heal and help; prov 15

For the eyes of the Lord roam to and fro throughout the whole earth looking for a man whose heart is perfect toward him, not a perfect man but a man whose heart is perfect toward him, and continues that verse, so that he God, in response to that man’s faithfulness can show himself as GOD STRONG, on that man’s behalf. That’s all we can do Naz; be of good cheer and cut others some slack because he, Kevin too, means well in trying to do his best. 🙂 😉

I gave you my take on Cornelius (the short version) as it only addresses water baptism. The critical scriptures are (Acts 10:47-48 and Acts 11:17-18)

The critical question is; how could Peter stand in the way of God? The gentiles clearly had received the baptism of the Holy Spirt and they clearly had repented, so what is Peter talking about? In what way could Peter stand in the way of God with His repented and Holy Spirit filled believers?

The story goes like this and most of us could tell the same story: someone pointed their finger at the chest area of my shirt and asked how did I get that on your shirt? As I looked down to see what it was, they slid their finger up and bopped my nose as they said boop! I felt silly, because I was fooled. I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book. From time to time, I still fall for this silly little trick. Some tricks simply work again and again, while others do not. For example, no one will ever trick me into pulling his or her finger again.

I’ve never seen this book of tricks, nor do I know who wrote it or if it even exists. Yet, if the book exists, I do know what the oldest of the oldest tricks in the book is.

It starts the same form of the seemingly innocent way as the oldest trick in the book we call the Bible; with a dishonest question. “Has God said…? A simple question designed to deceive us. Somehow, just as the “what’s on shirt” question, this question has worked again from the time satan first asked it. It’s his oldest trick in his playbook. It’s designed to work the same way as it did in the garden. It is designed to make us question if the word of God is valid?

Has God said? Does this scripture really say what it appears to say? Or could it be it is saying something more pleasing that what I thought God said (see Gen 3:3, observe Eve was confused about the actual command God gave Adam. God never said, “do not touch the tree”) (see Gen 3:6) The sin Eve committed that lead to disobedience was to “not believe” what God said. She was deceived when she saw there were personal benefits that she preferred over the word of God. She had fallen into unbelief. Afterward, with her new enlightenment, she drew Adam into disobedience. So we can see Eve’s sin was “unbelief “because she was deceived by the serpent and Adam’s sin was disobedience because he was enticed by something that looked better than the word of God.

It’s interesting how the oldest trick in the book still works today to invalidate the word of God. For atheist, the question is, “does God really exist”? The answer that is found pleasing to the eye and makes one wise is “No”. To those look at the scriptures and see something other than what the word of God says, are deceived into believing something more pleasing to the eye and makes one wise, commit the sin of unbelief.

Kevin

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

par. 1 — “As disciple of Jesus, they were baptized by Jesus and/or by other disciples of Jesus …. It was witnesses such as these …, baptized by Jesus, ….”

“The following scriptures support the chronology of the events stated above.”

par. 5 — “When they became disciples of Christ, they would have been baptized by Him (John 3:26).”

Do you see any irreconciliation amongst (John 3:22, 26; 4:1-2) in light of John 4:2 “(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),” especially as this verse may be interpreted as being presented parenthetically; much the same as John 1:41 and John 4:25?

To the best of my knowledge the resolution of whether or not Jesus/Yahshua ever baptized anyone in any sense during the course of His earthly ministry remains unestablished. Indeed it could be understood from John 7:37-39 (NASB) that Yahshua was not to baptize at all until He completed His redemptive work on the cross and was resurrected by God into glory through the Holy Spirit [John 20:19-23; Matthew 28:16-20].

Which sort of baptism do you think Jesus performed? Was it always the “circumcision made without hands” [Colossians 2:9-12]? Was it one to remove impurity, or call the sinner to repentance unto life, or grant forgiveness, or identify the sinner as one of Messiah’s sheep who know, listen to and obey His voice, or one that allows the sinner to partake of His suffering, or transformative to regenerate the new creature in the image of God’s Son [2 Timothy 1:8-10; Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18]? Could the question be thought of in the sense that Messiah works through others just as the Father works through Him [John 14:10-12]?

We think of Christ/Messiah as LORD/YHWH, Savior, Redeemer even Pantocrator. Is Messiah as Baptizer essential to your theological conception & acceptance of Him? If so, why so?

As John the apostle recorded: Therefore many other attesting miracles Jesus/Yahshua also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus/Yahshua is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Allow me to offer examples to you of the problem of using ancient texts to extrapolate into today’s reality. We can find text in the Bible and other Holy Books; the Quran for example, used against victims of other people’s rigid interpretation of scripture because scripture gives us license, if we are that way inclined, to behave in ways we might otherwise be ashamed of in time.

There’s nothing you can’t read into it or take from it. So whatever nasty little attitude that you harbor toward your fellow man, will find justification in scripture because, like the sands of the desert, fixed and immutable, yet, ever shifting the words of god are infinitely versatile. Open that book and watch them dance across the page like ninjas, each one a soldier for you and your prejudices.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking you can blame scripture for your opinions. You can seek refuge in it as many hypocrites do but you can’t hide behind it.

Because scripture depends on interpretation, because it is so ambiguous, the way you choose to interpret it, reveals who you are in your heart, so in that sense it’s not a shield at all. It’s a spotlight that shows up a heart like an x-ray.

In today’s modern era we see groups of people targeting ancient buildings used for religious purposes that enrage certain people because they represent something false and so they tear down their buildings and blow them up into useless rubble. We see this today and wonder how people could destroy ancient artifacts but it is easily understood because ancient texts are used to justify it.

One can find just such a text justifying these events in the bible:

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

The same goes for the Genesis story. If you were trying to describe the first humans you might start, as Moses did, by using Adam and Eve as children, not knowing anything and relying on the parents or an older brother(i8n this case of course he had to use the God concept of the elders) to learn about things to do and things not to do. But we know that children are never fully obedient to their parents because of ego and arrogance, rebellion and self sufficiency.

Don’t touch that stove! Don’t play with matches! We know that correction is grievous to be borne but we also know that belief and obedience is not always, and a seldom honored method so matches are played with and stoves touched and kids learn from the burn, the pain, the hurt, the skinned knees and elbows and it doesn’t stop with minor trauma, but don’t play with guns, don’t run across streets without looking both ways, don’t play in traffic, don’t dive into the rapids, don’t swim in the ebb tide, don’t dig in the sandbar for clams when the tide starts coming in, don’t speed, don’t drink and drive, wear your seatbelt….these are all eating of the forbidden fruit…..sometimes you don’t die but sometimes you do but surely you KNOW good and evil.

That is the nature of man, of children and the arrogant-ego, metaphorical name to describe that nature is satan, devil, lucifer, rebellion, demon, archangel, beast, Beelzebub, diablo, evil one, fallen angel, Prince Of Darkness, antichricst, Appolyon, Archfiend, King of Hell, evil spirit, hellion.

HERE IS A Metaphorical STORY right out of the pages of ancient Mythology:

One day when the angels came to report to God, Satan, who was the Designated Accuser, came along with them. God singled out Satan and said, “What have you been up to?”

God said to Satan, “Have you noticed my servant? There’s no one quite like him—honest and true to his word, totally devoted to God and hating evil.”

Satan retorted, “So do you think your servant does all that out of the sheer goodness of his heart? Why, no one ever had it so good! You pamper him like a pet, make sure nothing bad ever happens to him or his family or his possessions, bless everything he does—he can’t lose!

“But what do you think would happen if you reached down and took away everything that is his? He’d curse you right to your face, that’s what.”

God replied, “We’ll see. Go ahead—do what you want with all that is his. Just don’t hurt him.” Then Satan left the presence of God.

Sometime later, while the servant’s children were having one of their parties at the home of the oldest son, a messenger came and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys grazing in the field next to us when the Enemy attacked. They stole the animals and killed the field hands. I’m the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened.”

While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, “Bolts of lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and fried them—burned them to a crisp. I’m the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened.”

While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, “The Enemy coming from three directions raided the camels and massacred the camel drivers. I’m the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened.”

While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, “Your children were having a party at the home of the oldest brother when a tornado swept in off the desert and struck the house. It collapsed on the young people and they died. I’m the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened.”

The servant got to his feet, ripped his robe, shaved his head, then fell to the ground and worshiped:

Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked I’ll return to the womb of the earth. God gives, God takes. God’s name be ever blessed.

Not once through all this did the servant sin; not once did the servant blame God. Job 1:6-22

Didn’t really happen, necessarily; it is an allegory. So is most of the Book of Genesis because nobody was there in the snap of a god finger twinkling of the eye. And so to try and make philosophical points about allegories from ten thousand centuries ago as though it is Absolute Certainty is a mere exercise in redundancy.

I’m glad you pointed out Acts 11 because it makes this event even clearer. This is all a matter of context. You have done a good job explaining the encounter with Cornelius but I think you have read this slightly out of context, let me try to explain carefully.

Act 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,
Act 11:3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
Act 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order:

At the beginning of chapter 11 the Jews criticized Peter for eating with the Gentiles even though they heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. These Jews would not accept the fact that Gentiles would have any part of God’s plan of salvation. Under the Law of Moses a Jew was to have no part with a Gentile, they were unclean people and separated from the commonwealth of Israel. The Jews thought this way ignorantly without knowing the full story, so Peter began to explain to them the encounter with Cornelius.

Act 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

As Peter tells the story he explains how the angel told Cornelius that Peter would tell him the words whereby him and his household would be saved. In the next verse, Peter describes the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit.

What did Peter preach up to this point in his dialogue with Cornelius ? Back to Acts 10 below….

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
Act 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God…..

Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and then told them what they must do to receive remission of sins – believe (verse 43). This was ALL they needed to here to be saved.

“…..whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ”

The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking. At this point these Gentiles were saved completely. They were sealed “unto the day of redemption”.

Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

These Gentiles were saved when they heard the word and believed it in their heart as evidenced by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on them. They had Christ in them and have received the promise of the new covenant in their hearts through hearing the gospel with faith.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Kevin, a person cannot have received the Holy Spirit and not be saved. This is not possible, even John the Baptist said there comes one that will baptize with the Holy Spirit emphasizing the priority or preeminence of the Spirit baptism. It is the Holy Spirit which makes you and I a new creation and also which makes us brothers in Christ. This is an awesome truth. This is the new birth. Christ will not dwell in dirty places, in other words, when the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) comes to live inside you, He has forgiven you of your sins and forgotten them and has made you a new creation. There is no need for additional cleansing from water baptism since the spiritual cleansing has already taken place “in Him”. This is what we see in the Cornelius story, the faith of the Gentiles in believing the gospel cleansed them of their sins and they were born again having received the Holy Spirit.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Going back to Acts 11:17 when Peter says,

Act 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

What Peter is saying in this dialogue with the Jews is that who was he (Peter) that he could prevent God from saving the Gentiles in addition to the Jews? The Jews started the chapter criticizing Peter for going to the Gentiles and in the end Peter explained that if God wants to save the Gentiles who am I to stop God ? I think this is the correct sense of this passage based on the immediate context. I really don’t see how this has anything to do with standing in God’s way to baptize the Gentiles, they were already baptized by the Holy Spirit and were placed eternally in Christ and sealed. The Jew-Gentile issue was a big deal back then. This was a huge revelation to Peter and the apostles that God’s salvation was for all people including the Gentiles (us) !

To answer your question below….
“Have you ever considered why Peter said, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

As I said before, water baptism was the norm for believers so in keeping with this pattern Peter is saying what is stopping these new Gentile believers from being baptized like us since they obviously believe, God bearing witness by His Spirit. In other words they have met the qualifications, if you will, for water baptism, faith in Jesus Christ. The apostles would not baptize persons that did not believe the gospel. These believers were now free to be baptized.

So we see that water baptism follows after a person puts faith in Christ and is saved. This is the case for every believer and the encounter with Cornelius really shows us in a unique historical way what it is that saves a person – believing the gospel.

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

John 3 in context

K, regarding John 3 and Nicodemus, the context is natural birth versus spiritual birth. How do we know this? Nicodemus asks,

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

We see here Nicodemus is clueless of what Jesus is talking about and starts talking about natural birth. Jesus doesn’t call him clueless like I just did, but rather tries to help him understand by comparing natural birth to spiritual birth. The emphasis is on being born of the Spirit (verse 8). Flesh gives birth to flesh, and this Nicodemus can understand as natural birth. What he needs to get is that the new birth is of the Spirit of God.

When we are saved nothing happens to our flesh. It is still the same old us physically and nothing happens to our soul either, our mind, will and emotions are the same. The real change happens in our spirit where God takes permanent residence. It’s a spiritual birth that takes place. Our physical (flesh) redemption will take place at the resurrection when we are given new bodies since flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul speaks about this in 1Corinthians 15 which I’m sure you’re familiar with.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

1) Frank,
Early on in His ministry Jesus plucked Peter and Andrew, and Phillip . . . the apostles from the followers of John. It’s clear that Jesus preached the gospel message of repentance and baptism and therefore began baptizing His disciples. It would be reasonable to assume Jesus did the actual baptizing of His first chosen disciples and then gave them that authority to baptize other disciples in His name. This is an example of what we should understand the point Paul made about “not coming to baptize”; it isn’t the person doing the baptism, it’s the one who was crucified that you are untied with in baptism; Jesus Christ. That was the message, not as others claim that Paul didn’t believe baptism wasn’t for the remission of sins all that believe and repent.

Whether Jesus did the actual immersing or not, the disciples were being baptized in His name. Baptism in the New Testament unites the repented sinners (us) with the forgiver of sins; Jesus Christ Rom 6:3-6. It also is how we, being united with Him, are covered with the clothes of Christ; the atonement (Gal 3:27), cleansed with the blood of the atonement is the spiritual work that takes place in our baptism into Christ; the circumcision made without hands (Col 2:11-14). The disciples that were baptized were untied in their baptism with Jesus Christ, the forgiver of sins, therefore they would have been united and clothed with His righteousness even though the work of the cross had not come in the fullness of time for this reason; Jesus is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

My post only addressed water baptism. My belief, based on John 3, we are born again, of the Father, who formed us from the dust of the ground (that which is flesh is flesh), through the water of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. When we are covered with Christ in baptism, God sees what He originally saw when He formed Adam out of the dust of the ground; He sees a creature made in His own perfect image AGAIN!!!

The main points I was trying to make is

1) Repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins has always been fully part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, beginning with the baptism of John.
2) The twelve apostles were the most qualified people on the [planet to preach the gospel because they were partakers of the gospel beginning with the baptism of John, then baptized as disciples of Jesus, then baptizing disciples other disciples of Jesus. Soooo, is it more than reasonable or not, Peter and the other eleven knew what the full gospel of Christ was and what to preach, coupled with the fact that Peter was full of the promised Holy Spirit when he preached the gospel and gave the command to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins on the Day of Pentecost? The answer is yes. It should leave no doubt that baptism washes away the sins of the repented and it should leave no doubt who’s name they baptized in.

I don’t understand you last question. So, I’ll at least say this; The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11), in us (Col 1:26-27). The baptism of the Holy Spirit results with Christ in you and we need to have His Spirit; the same spirit we need that raised Him from the dead in the glory of God (Rom 8:11). I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is how we are born again, of the Father (that which is Spirit is Spirit), blowing into the nostrils of man the breath of life AGAIN!!!!

I re-read your last question and if I understand correctly you are asking me if it is necessary for Jesus to have physically dunked anyone in the water as the baptizer of His disciples His during earthly His ministry in order for me to accept Him as the Messiah? If this is what you are asking, the answer is no. The reason is simple, it doesn’t matter who does the baptizing with water, it only matters who you are united with in baptism. The concept is we are baptized, through the water, into Christ.

For clarity, I am theorizing, it is reasonable to assume Jesus would have preached His gospel and therefore baptized some of His disciples before He commissioned others to baptize His disciples at the preaching of His gospel. Just as He was the first to heal the sick, cast out demons, and declare the gospel before He commissioned others to do it in His name.

Thank you for your clarity thus providing me a better understanding of your thoughts on these matters. You did understand my last question correctly. I agree with your analysis; it being reasonable for Messiah, as we see Him clearly doing, to provide the example for us to follow to have demonstrated precisely what He meant for His disciples to carry out.

“Under the Law of Moses a Jew was to have no part with a Gentile, they were unclean people and separated from the commonwealth of Israel.”

*****************************************************************************************
“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD/YHWH.” (Numbers 15:15)

I like what you wrote and how you presented your theology. Iron does sharpen iron.

Quote:
I’m glad you pointed out Acts 11 because it makes this event even clearer. This is all a matter of context. You have done a good job explaining the encounter with Cornelius but I think you have read this slightly out of context, let me try to explain carefully.
Unquote.

I, like you, in support your theology believe you have used some scriptures out of context.

I want to simplify as much as possible to magnify the difference in context only with an effort to keep it short as possible. So, I will limit the amount of scriptures I copy and paste. With that said, we both understand why Peter is explaining what took place and the atmosphere in which he was giving his account of events; you detailed it perfectly.

Quote:
As Peter tells the story he explains how the angel told Cornelius that Peter would tell him the words whereby him and his household would be saved. In the next verse, Peter describes the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit.
What did Peter preach up to this point in his dialogue with Cornelius ? Back to Acts 10 below….
Unquote.

My response: Agreed, nothing to expound upon.

Quote:
Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and then told them what they must do to receive remission of sins – believe (verse 43). This was ALL they needed to here to be saved. “…..whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ”
The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking. At this point these Gentiles were saved completely. They were sealed “unto the day of redemption”.
Unquote

My response: You left out an important part of the text in Acts 10:43; “through His name” all that believe in Him shall receive remission of sins.

When you read the immediate words Peter spoke to the Gentiles (vs. 48), the context of this scripture is made clear it is through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that a repented believer receives the remission of sins.

This is exactly what Peter said directly in sequence to the Gentiles: Acts 10:43, 48 – “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”. This is exactly consistent with the gospel message Peter preached when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To read anything else into the context of vs 43 would be reading too much into the scripture.

It is through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that a repented believer receives the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 41, 22:16). This is where the blood of Christ covers us (Gal 3:27 – “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”. Why does baptism clothes us with Christ? The preceding verse tells us it is by believing the gospel message; Gal 3:26 – “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” The type and shadow of this was preached in the scriptures beforehand (Gen 3:21 – The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them).

When you consider whom the Epistles were written to; people that heard the preaching of the gospel and what they heard when they believed was, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. There would be little need to re-preach the gospel to them for they already believed and experienced everything that was preached. The need is to exhort and correct the various misunderstandings and false teachings that crept in.

Quote:
Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
These Gentiles were saved when they heard the word and believed it in their heart as evidenced by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on them. They had Christ in them and have received the promise of the new covenant in their hearts through hearing the gospel with faith.
Unquote.

My response: I agree, but you must understand they had only received Christ in them. The other part of the gospel message is to receive is to be “in Christ”, which comes through the water of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3 – Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus . . .

Quote:
Kevin, a person cannot have received the Holy Spirit and not be saved. This is not possible, even John the Baptist said there comes one that will baptize with the Holy Spirit emphasizing the priority or preeminence of the Spirit baptism. It is the Holy Spirit which makes you and I a new creation and also which makes us brothers in Christ. This is an awesome truth. This is the new birth. Christ will not dwell in dirty places, in other words, when the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) comes to live inside you, He has forgiven you of your sins and forgotten them and has made you a new creation. There is no need for additional cleansing from water baptism since the spiritual cleansing has already taken place “in Him”. This is what we see in the Cornelius story, the faith of the Gentiles in believing the gospel cleansed them of their sins and they were born again having received the Holy Spirit.
Unquote:

My response: Remission of sins comes through the shed blood of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The Spirit of Christ had no blood to shed for us; it was through the blood shed by the son of man; Jesus Christ that covers are sins. Again, according to Gal 3:27 we are clothed with Christ when we are baptized in His name. According to Rom 6:3 his happens when we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ we are united with Him, in all that He has done as the son of man. With that, and again, we are circumcised with the circumcision of our flesh with the circumcision made without hands when we are buried with Him with Him in baptism. Especially note Paul is talking about our flesh that was unclean and it is our flesh that became clean “in Him”, we are alive “in Him” by the shed blood of the son of man, not Him in us, because the Spirit had no blood to shed.

Col 2:10-14 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The work of the spirit in salivation: We are sealed with the Spirit for the day of our resurrection in Christ. The final work to be done will be done by the Spirit in the resurrection.

(Rom 8:11 – But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you).

Quote:
What Peter is saying in this dialogue with the Jews is that who was he (Peter) that he could prevent God from saving the Gentiles in addition to the Jews? The Jews started the chapter criticizing Peter for going to the Gentiles and in the end Peter explained that if God wants to save the Gentiles who am I to stop God ? I think this is the correct sense of this passage based on the immediate context. I really don’t see how this has anything to do with standing in God’s way to baptize the Gentiles, they were already baptized by the Holy Spirit and were placed eternally in Christ and sealed. The Jew-Gentile issue was a big deal back then. This was a huge revelation to Peter and the apostles that God’s salvation was for all people including the Gentiles (us) !

My response: I agree with the context laid out, but you’re assuming that the Gentiles don’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins because you don’t believe it is preached in the gospel message. You are also making the assumption these people have already been resurrected at the end of the age when, in reality, all that they received is a promise. No one is eternally saved until they are resurrected in Christ.

In summary, for us to be saved, two things must be true; 1) we must be in Christ. 2) Christ must be in us. These two things are the work of God preached to us though the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1) We are placed in Christ, through faith in the working of God, (Col 2:12) when we believe the gospel message to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; it is through the work of God our sins are washed away in Christ
2) We receive Christ in us when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit; it is by the Spirit that we will be resurrected in Christ.

This was lengthy, so I will respond to your take on John 3 in another text.

Kevin

Quote:
I’m glad you pointed out Acts 11 because it makes this event even clearer. This is all a matter of context. You have done a good job explaining the encounter with Cornelius but I think you have read this slightly out of context, let me try to explain carefully.
Unquote.

I, like you, in support your theology believe you have used some scriptures out of context.

I want to simplify as much as possible to magnify the difference in context only with an effort to keep it short as possible. So, I will limit the amount of scriptures I copy and paste. With that said, we both understand why Peter is explaining what took place and the atmosphere in which he was giving his account of events; you detailed it perfectly.

Quote:
As Peter tells the story he explains how the angel told Cornelius that Peter would tell him the words whereby him and his household would be saved. In the next verse, Peter describes the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit.
What did Peter preach up to this point in his dialogue with Cornelius ? Back to Acts 10 below….
Unquote.

My response: Agreed, nothing to expound upon.

Quote:
Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and then told them what they must do to receive remission of sins – believe (verse 43). This was ALL they needed to here to be saved. “…..whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ”
The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking. At this point these Gentiles were saved completely. They were sealed “unto the day of redemption”.
Unquote

My response: You left out an important part of the text in Acts 10:43; “through His name” all that believe in Him shall receive remission of sins.

When you read the immediate words Peter spoke to the Gentiles (vs. 48), the context of this scripture is made clear it is through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that a repented believer receives the remission of sins.

This is exactly what Peter said directly in sequence to the Gentiles: Acts 10:43, 48 – “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”. This is exactly consistent with the gospel message Peter preached when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To read anything else into the context of vs 43 would be reading too much into the scripture.

It is through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that a repented believer receives the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 41, 22:16). This is where the blood of Christ covers us (Gal 3:27 – “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”. Why does baptism clothes us with Christ? The preceding verse tells us it is by believing the gospel message; Gal 3:26 – “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” The type and shadow of this was preached in the scriptures beforehand (Gen 3:21 – The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them).

When you consider whom the Epistles were written to; people that heard the preaching of the gospel and what they heard when they believed was, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. There would be little need to re-preach the gospel to them for they already believed and experienced everything that was preached. The need is to exhort and correct the various misunderstandings and false teachings that crept in.

Quote:
Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
These Gentiles were saved when they heard the word and believed it in their heart as evidenced by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on them. They had Christ in them and have received the promise of the new covenant in their hearts through hearing the gospel with faith.
Unquote.

My response: I agree, but you must understand they had only received Christ in them. The other part of the gospel message is to receive is to be “in Christ”, which comes through the water of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3 – Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus . . .

Quote:
Kevin, a person cannot have received the Holy Spirit and not be saved. This is not possible, even John the Baptist said there comes one that will baptize with the Holy Spirit emphasizing the priority or preeminence of the Spirit baptism. It is the Holy Spirit which makes you and I a new creation and also which makes us brothers in Christ. This is an awesome truth. This is the new birth. Christ will not dwell in dirty places, in other words, when the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) comes to live inside you, He has forgiven you of your sins and forgotten them and has made you a new creation. There is no need for additional cleansing from water baptism since the spiritual cleansing has already taken place “in Him”. This is what we see in the Cornelius story, the faith of the Gentiles in believing the gospel cleansed them of their sins and they were born again having received the Holy Spirit.
Unquote:

My response: Remission of sins comes through the shed blood of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The Spirit of Christ had no blood to shed for us; it was through the blood shed by the son of man; Jesus Christ that covers are sins. Again, according to Gal 3:27 we are clothed with Christ when we are baptized in His name. According to Rom 6:3 his happens when we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ we are united with Him, in all that He has done as the son of man. With that, and again, we are circumcised with the circumcision of our flesh with the circumcision made without hands when we are buried with Him with Him in baptism. Especially note Paul is talking about our flesh that was unclean and it is our flesh that became clean “in Him”, we are alive “in Him” by the shed blood of the son of man, not Him in us, because the Spirit had no blood to shed.

Col 2:10-14 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The work of the spirit in salivation: We are sealed with the Spirit for the day of our resurrection in Christ. The final work to be done will be done by the Spirit in the resurrection.

(Rom 8:11 – But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you).

Quote:
What Peter is saying in this dialogue with the Jews is that who was he (Peter) that he could prevent God from saving the Gentiles in addition to the Jews? The Jews started the chapter criticizing Peter for going to the Gentiles and in the end Peter explained that if God wants to save the Gentiles who am I to stop God ? I think this is the correct sense of this passage based on the immediate context. I really don’t see how this has anything to do with standing in God’s way to baptize the Gentiles, they were already baptized by the Holy Spirit and were placed eternally in Christ and sealed. The Jew-Gentile issue was a big deal back then. This was a huge revelation to Peter and the apostles that God’s salvation was for all people including the Gentiles (us) !

My response: I agree with the context laid out, but you’re assuming that the Gentiles don’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins because you don’t believe it is preached in the gospel message. You are also making the assumption these people have already been resurrected at the end of the age when, in reality, all that they received is a promise. No one is eternally saved until they are resurrected in Christ.

In summary, for us to be saved, two things must be true; 1) we must be in Christ. 2) Christ must be in us. These two things are the work of God preached to us though the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1) We are placed in Christ, through faith in the working of God, (Col 2:12) when we believe the gospel message to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; it is through the work of God our sins are washed away in Christ
2) We receive Christ in us when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit; it is by the Spirit that we will be resurrected in Christ.

This was lengthy, so I will respond to your take on John 3 in another post.

Jesus mission repent and believe in the internal eternal, not the external eternal.

Jesus used water baptism symbolically(metaphorically) to acknowledge the cleansing power of water; thus, as water to the body so the spirit to the mind. Mind Emotion and Will; Body Soul and Spirit.

But the masses still relied on water baptism as the tradition as John practiced the tradition for the righteousness it preached but not for the righteousness it gave because it gave no righteousness. Jesus water baptism metaphrically as a transition, not tradition, a transition to spirit baptism that follows from repent and believe.

Neither did remission of sin come through shedding blood, blood can not forgive, remit or cancel sin, not by the priests’ tradition nor by the shed blood of Jesus, that is a dog the Church has wagged since Moses and continued after the crucifixion with the same dogma because they did not learn enough of Jesus’ message and were void to understand that.

And today they still have not learned, remaining void while debating each other who follow the philosophies of the Acts Preachers instead of the message of Jesus the Founder of the revolution. Can the soldiers aptly convey the orders of the General? I don’t think so. Many remain void today meaning well but walking dead.

THE NICODEMUS MEETING:
You’re right Nicodemus. I’m quite exceptional. Matter of fact I am the exception. And you’re absolutely right Nicodemus, there’s only one possible explanation for my life, the things I do and what I say and the quality of life I live, God. Don’t misunderstand me Nicodemus; not because I am God though God I am, by the Good (God) I reflect. But because Nicodemus, though God, I’m man. Man as I as God created him to be. The kind of man Nicodemus who’ll let God be God and that’s why since the first time Adam fell into sin when God looks at me he sees on earth Nicodemus, a real man. Because in the totality of my being, my body, my soul, my spirit, my mind, my emotion and my will, I place myself unreservedly at his disposal so that he in me can be the author of everything I do and everything I say and everything I am.

Everyone who makes a practice of speaking evil, of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won’t come near it, fearing a painful exposure. But anyone speaking, working and living in truth and reality welcomes God-light so the work can be seen by others as a manifestation of the Good within, for the God-work it is. John 3:20-21

You see Nicodemus, it’s the divine logic.

That you with all mankind were so created that the presence of the creator in the creature is indispensable to your humanity. It’s that proposition, Nicodemus, the divine logic of which is indispensable to your humanity. That every demand that God makes upon a man is from God’s point of view completely logical. It’s only from man’s point of view, Nicodemus, in his fallen condition that it’s utterly unreasonable because in the divine logic, Nicodemus, there’s a hidden factor that’s absent in human reason and that hidden factor represents the margin of difference between what is divinely possible and otherwise cannot but be humanly unreasonable. And that hidden factor, God, himself. As indispensable, Nicodemus, to man as my Father is now to me.

As oil is to a lamp, or gas is to a car. You Nicodemus, were made that way. Now these are just a few of the things we’ve been considering, just a brief word of recapitulation to refresh your memory. The divine logic. Do you remember what it says in 1Thessolonians 5:24? Faithful is he that calleth you. Who’s that? God. Faithful is he that calleth you. Who? God, will also do it. Well tell me this. If he that calls you to it, as God, is the one who’s going to do it, what would be illogical about anything to which he calls you? Faithful is he that calleth you who will also do it and there’s absolutely nothing to which God calls you which he himself as God in the man is not prepared to do. If you let him.

What about this verse. It’s familiar to you; it’s found in the second chapter of the epistle to the Philippians, Paul addressing these new converts whom it has been his privilege to lead redemptively to the Lord Jesus, so on the grounds of that redemptive transaction being now reconciled to God, forgiven sinners, they might receive the gift to them of that life that was forfeited in Adam in spiritual regeneration, the renewing of the holy ghost, the coming back of the holy spirit, co-equal in deity with the Father and the Holy Spirit so that the whole triune Godhead could invade and occupy and monopolize their humanity, says he to them “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, and you know what he’s not saying; he’s not saying work for your salvation, that would have been diametrically opposed to everything he ever said or wrote. “Not of works lest any man should boast, by grace you’re saved through faith, that not of yourselves, this salvation is God’s gift to you.” Not by any works of righteousness that you have done, according to his mercy, he saved you, by the washing of regeneration, that renew birth that puts God back into the man. Not for your salvation, he says, “Work out your salvation, more in my absence than in my presence” Don’t lean on me, my presence is not indispensable to your spiritual well being, more in my absence than in my presence, I’m not your crutch. It’s God, who works in you both to will and to do in his good pleasure. And everything that God gave me in the day that I was redeemed and Jesus Christ came to inhabit my humanity, he’s given to you. “the Christ who lives in me said he to the Philippians, is the Christ that lives in you. He says live it up. Just know how wealthy you became in the day that your humanity was invaded by your creator redeemer. Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it; work out your own salvation with fear and trembling because it’s God who works in you to will and do of his good pleasure. Tell me this: what would be illogical about anything that God wills for you if He as God in you is prepared to do what he wills?

Remember the verse in the 22nd of Matthew? Many are called but few are chosen. Why do you imagine of the many who are called so few are chosen? Because faithful is he that calleth you who will also do it and of the many who are called, so few will let him, do it! And he’s the only one who can. You see God isn’t looking around for anyone to be man sized for God, this is sort of the sentimental nonsense we hear again and again from the platform, “Be man sized for God”. As though he were waiting breathlessly for you. Poor God. He’s not looking for someone to be man sized for God, he’s just looking for any boy, girl, man or woman, anywhere who’ll let God be God sized in a man. He’s the only one who’s big enough.

Do you know that beautiful verse, 2 Chronicles, Chapter 16 verse 9: “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth looking for a man whose heart is perfect toward him”? Not a perfect man because there was none save God’s incarnate son, a perfect heart. The heart that says I can’t, God never said I could, he can, always said he would. And if you can’t and he can what’s the smartest thing to do? Let him.

This is the whole Christian life in a nutshell. And God says, as he looks throughout the whole earth, his eyes moving to and fro that he might find a man whose heart being perfect toward him, continues that verse, so that he in response in faithfulness to that man’s faith may show himself as God Strong on that man’s behalf. He’s simply saying, “Give me please, any boy, any girl, any man, any woman, any where, who’ll let me be God, in the man. And the Lord Jesus you see though never ever less than God coming into this world to behave as though he were never ever more than man, let God do it. Your right Nicodemus, only one possible explanation for my life, my Father without whom I can do nothing because you see the Father who lives in me, he does the work. I let him.

Kevin, I will focus on one statement you made which I think hinges the whole argument about water baptism.

Quote:
“but you’re assuming that the Gentiles don’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins because you don’t believe it is preached in the gospel message. You are also making the assumption these people have already been resurrected at the end of the age when, in reality, all that they received is a promise. No one is eternally saved until they are resurrected in Christ.”
End-Quote

I think the fact that the Gentiles received the Spirit upon hearing and believing the gospel is key to understanding salvation and the role of water baptism. The question is, were these Gentiles saved at the moment they received the Holy Spirit ? You have indicated that they were required to be baptized with water in order to receive forgiveness of sins and be in Christ (paraphrase).

So what you are saying is that we have a bunch of Spirit filled believers in Jesus Christ that have not had their sins forgiven yet. I know that you can point to scriptures where these and other believers were baptized in water and then claim that this is what “caused” the forgiveness of sins. However, in the same way, I can claim that all those who ever got baptized already believed in Christ and were already saved, therefore rendering water baptism as only a symbolic external means to identify with Christ. I will
not argue that people did not get baptized upon being saved, that is evident. However I will argue the significance of it as I would also argue that celebrating the Lord’s supper (communion) was a normal practice of the church also. So the argument here is not whether or not believers were baptized in water, the argument is how is a person saved and what being “saved” means. When we know that answer to that we will be able to determine what role water baptism plays. Our long debate only shows that it is not obvious from the scripture that God forgives sins through water baptism.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Verse 9 teaches us that we are in Christ when Christ is in us. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have Christ in you and not be in Christ, this is impossible. Spiritual union with Christ is Him in us and us in Him simultaneously, there is no distinction of when He enters us and when we enter Him. Verse 10 tells us that if Christ is in us, we have already died to sin. When did we die to sin ? When we were crucified with Him (spiritually) at Calvary. If we are dead to sin then sin has no power over us, this means that our sin debt has been taken away and we have been forgiven of all our sins. So these verses links the forgiveness of sins to Christ being in us.

Back to Acts 10….

I cannot accept the notion that a Spirit filled believer is not a forgiven person. The parable of the wine skins teach us that you can’t put new wine in old wine skins. This is a good analogy of salvation, God cannot dwell in dirty places but must clean house first by forgiving and removing our sins and then taking residence in us. When I see a Spirit filled believer, I see a forgiven person. He must be forgiven or God would not spiritually unite with him. The forgiveness of sins and Christ being in us is a spiritual transaction that does not require any external means or rites or symbols to take effect. I have pointed to the thief on the cross before as a beautiful picture of
this and also the old testament saints who had faith in God. I believe in the big picture salvation has always been by faith though God’s grace regardless of what time period we are referring to. I know you are trying to reconcile all the scriptures to form a theology you can understand, and I appreciate that. However, you are unknowingly giving water baptism a preeminence to Christ Himself from my perspective, although I know you don’t mean to really do that. Water baptism, even in Jesus name, is not the same as Jesus Christ Himself. We are saved by a person not by anything else.

If the Spirit of Christ dwells in us He will raise us up at the resurrection (Romans 8:11). Will not God keep His promise? These Gentiles in Acts 10 will be resurrected on the last day because Christ dwells in them. Will God revoke His promise and forsake them ? This does not sound like the good news of the gospel. What must these Gentiles do to “keep” their salvation ? Is the Gospel based on our faithfulness ? No, the old covenant was based on the Jews faithfulness and it failed badly, that is why we have a new covenant based on God’s faithfulness (Hebrews 8:6-13) with better promises. The Holy Spirit is a guarantee or “earnest” (KJV) of our inheritance (Ephesian 1:14-15). The whole point of the gospel is the promise of eternal life. If we don’t think God will come through or think we must somehow secure our eternal destiny, then we have failed to believe the gospel and have fallen from grace back to our own works. Based on the fact that the promises of God are irrevocable, and that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit as a down payment of their salvation, we can conclude that these Gentiles are saved and therefore sealed, their sins therefore must have been forgiven at the moment they believed the gospel of Jesus Christ otherwise they cannot be saved. By deduction, this means water baptism is not what took away their sins – Jesus did. This is no surprise, both you and I already know this.

Kevin, I used to believe exactly as you do now about water baptism. After going back to what it really means to be saved and unpacking it from there, I have come to the current understanding I have now. I hope my ramblings above makes some sense to you. I respect your position and your diligence to study the scriptures. Thanks for the opportunity you have given me to share my beliefs on these matters as it has helped me as well.

One thing has become clear to me. I am not communicating my position properly. I want to clear up what this argument is about. This argument is strictly, about what it means to believe and what is it we are supposed to believe. That’s all, nothing more.

Here’s where I believe we got off track; although I thought I made it clear from the start that I don’t believe water baptism is a work we do that saves us, yet you have argued as if that was my position, which if it was, I would be a legalist. I am not a legalist. I am a believer. I believe there is only one gospel. I believe water baptism is part of the one and only gospel and, in regards to water baptism, I believe a supernatural work of God takes place when we are baptized. I have provided sound scriptural support for this position. For the most part, you’ve argued against legalism, but my position isn’t legalistic; I don’t believe you’re saved because you were baptized with water. I believe you are saved when you believe in Christ and in all that He commanded. The gospel of Christ teaches us what to believe to be complete in Christ. It is by faith in His works, that we obey the gospel.

In hope and in wanting to clarify what I believe and why I believe it and give you an opportunity to agree or disagree. I want to re-frame the argument; It is a given that we both believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. This was accomplished, once and for all, through His death, burial and resurrection. It is also a given that we both agree that Jesus proclaimed His gospel during His earthly ministry. After His resurrection and before He ascended to heaven, He commissioned His chosen apostles and disciples to preach His gospel with the command to wait in Jerusalem until they received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. It is also a given that these apostles and disciples began preaching the gospel message of Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost? It is also a given that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and was the first to preach the Gospel after the Ascension and immediately upon the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So the questions are; is there only one gospel? Yes. If we were to take away or add to the gospel message, would it remain as the same gospel preached by the apostles or would it become another gospel? It would no longer be the gospel; there is only one gospel, not another one with a +/- something. Does believing the gospel message save us? Yes. Is repentance towards God for the forgiveness of sins included in the Gospel? Yes. Is baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins included in the gospel? Yes. Is repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins synergistically proclaimed and commanded, included in the Gospel? Yes. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit proclaimed to be given to all that believes, included in the Gospel? Yes. Did God or man give the gospel to us? The gospel came from God. Is the gospel the work of God or the work of man? The gospel is entirely the work of God. The word of God cannot be changed. The gospels say what it says. It is settled whether we believe it or not. I believe it! The following questions were intentionally left out, but I want to point out that your use of them doesn’t belong in comparison to what was preached in the gospel. Is doing good works commanded in the gospel? No. Is the Lord’s Supper commanded in preaching of the gospel? No. Using handkerchiefs for gifts of healing preached in the gospel? No.

With the above statements and questions proposed, hopefully I have made my belief clear; we either believe the gospel in full, or not. If we only believe in part of the gospel, we do not believe the gospel. We either believe the entire gospel or we do not believe it at all. I mean this in the same sense that if you break one law, you’ve broken the whole law; if you don’t believe the whole gospel, you don’t believe the gospel.

As I have said from the beginning, I am open to change my mind if the scriptures support a different doctrine. I will always be open to the truth. However, I will search the scriptures to determine if I am in error, not decide through persuasion of human reasoning. I believe Cain serves us as an example of how well human reasoning works out. Cain new he needed to make an animal sacrifice, but through human reasoning, he determined a sacrifice of the best of his produce would be acceptable to God. It didn’t make sense to Cain why God wouldn’t accept his way, because he relied on human reasoning instead of believing and trusting God’s way.

Up to this point, you have argued against your former legalistic belief in water baptism. I hope my position is clear that I don’t hold a legalistic view of water baptism. As I stated earlier, I don’t believe someone is saved because they are baptized.

With all that said, let’s put my statement into focus.
Quote: “but you’re assuming that the Gentiles don’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins because you don’t believe it is preached in the gospel message. You are also making the assumption these people have already been resurrected at the end of the age when, in reality, all that they received is a promise. No one is eternally saved until they are resurrected in Christ.”
End-Quote

Immediately there is a huge misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what I said. I didn’t say their sins were not already forgiven before they were baptized, you said that. Quote: You have indicated that they were required to be baptized with water in order to receive forgiveness of sins and be in Christ (paraphrase). End Quote
I didn’t indicate this, you did, from that point on, you are arguing against something you said, not me.

In fact, you never argued against my statement. My statement only indicated, according to your arguments, what you believe, not what I believe. Your argument was built on a foundation of what you used to believe perhaps, but it definitely is not arguing against my belief. Look at what I said.

Quote: “but you’re assuming that the Gentiles don’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins because you don’t believe it is preached in the gospel message. End Quote. Is my statement not true? Do you believe they do need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins?

In regard to the preceding question to your quote above,
Quote: “The question is, were these Gentiles saved at the moment they received the Holy Spirit ?” End Quote

My answer to this question is; yes, they were saved because they believed. However, look at the process as it pertains to Cornelius; Cornelius repented before he heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore he did not know Christ so it would have been impossible believe in Him. He believed in the God of Israel therefore he believed in the one true God. Cornelius repented because he believed, not because he was saved. In his repented condition, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit because he believed, not because he was saved, and he was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because he believed, not because he was saved. Every step Cornelius took was a step of faith believing in God and the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to him. He was granted repentance that leads to life, and he received the faith that leads to obedience. Cornelius is probably the best example of what it means to believe and why believing in Christ saves us. When you look back at Cornelius’s conversion, he was saved the moment he repented towards God in the sense he believed and never waivered in believing everything Peter preached, which included not just repentance but baptism in the name of Jesus Christ also for the remission of sins. It just doesn’t get any clearer than that. Cornelius was saved because he believed, not because he repented, not because he was baptized with the Holy Spirit, and not because he was baptized through the water in the name of Jesus Christ, because he believed. All of these things are preached in the gospel. They are what we are supposed to believe, because God said it, not man.

Here’s what I believe; repentance and baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ is for the forgiveness of sins. I also believe the gospel directly states this in the clearest manner possible. Now, let’s address repentance role in forgiveness. Since we are using Acts 10 and 11 as an example of what the gospel is and what saves us, I’ll use Cornelius as an example of repentance role in forgiveness. We know from the scriptures that Cornelius was a repented believer in the God of Israel, which also means he believed in only one God (Acts 10:1-5). Unless you make me do it, I will not pull the scriptures that support how God always forgives the sins of a repented person. Your example of the man on the cross that looked towards Jesus in repentance is a good example. So, we must understand that God forgives our sins in repentance, but it is though the waters of baptism that He, once and for all, covers us with the blood of Christ. It is through the waters of baptism that we are placed in Christ and it is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit Christ is placed in us. That’s as simple as the gospel is.

Part 2
Back to Cornelius, their sins had already been forgiven in repentance towards God. Upon hearing and believing the gospel, they were baptized with the promise of the Holy Spirit and also upon hearing and believing the gospel; they were baptized with water becoming united with Christ, the forgiver of sins. Paul said it is through the waters of baptism we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27). The significance of this is; God not only forgives our sin in our repentance, but He covers all our sin, once and for all, in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He performs this work through the waters of baptism into Christ. The result of this is; God no longer sees you dead in your sins, He sees you alive, a new creature in Christ. He now looks upon you and sees what He first saw when He formed Adam out of the dust of the ground; He sees you formed, again in His own image. All of this; believing, repenting, baptism with water into Christ, and the baptism of the Holy is Spirit is work of God that comes by faith.

Since the legalistic arguments do not apply, I am not going to bother with refuting every point for point of all of legalistic questions and scenarios presented in your post because they are presented out of context. It’s just not relevant to whether or not we believe in Christ and obey the gospel. I’ve stated what it means to believe and there is no human reasoning that can change the word of God and His ways of doing things (Isa 55:9-10-His ways are higher than our ways). His gospel is what it is and it plainly says what it says. Human reasoning cannot justifiably change what God said. Take a lesson from Adam and Eve. How did their path to being deceived and disobeying God begin? It started with “Did God say . . .?” To make a long story short, amongst many other things spoken in His gospel, God did say to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Hear the words to God’s gospel and believe so that you will obey with faith what God said is true.

According to the scriptures, it is only the voice of our enemy and the voice of human reasoning that questions what God said. It doesn’t matter even if you don’t yet understand how baptism in the name of Jesus Christ has it’s part in the forgiveness of sins, you only need to believe it because God said it (Isa 55:11 – So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it).
If the word of God says” repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, it must be true. Believe and be saved!

Naz, if your past view and practice of baptism was legalistic, you did receive revelation to reject it. However, I would say, through human reasoning, you also threw the baby out with the bath water (pun intended; new born). I would encourage you to consider my words and take another look at the scriptures with an open mind. I will be posting my take on John 3 soon and perhaps you might see another view than the one you have now.

In my opinion, it appears your arguments are based more on human reasoning and then searching the scriptures to support it. I believe this is exactly what you did when you quoted Acts 10:43 And this would explain why you didn’t see the critical context of Acts 10:43-48; Peter preached remission of sins in the name of Jesus and then immediately commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (vs. 43, 48).
Quote: Peter preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and then told them what they must do to receive remission of sins – believe (verse 43). This was ALL they needed to here to be saved. “…..whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ” The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking. At this point these Gentiles were saved completely. They were sealed “unto the day of redemption”. End Quote.
Let’s look at what the Acts 10:43 says – “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
You subtracted through His name – everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. It’s clear, vs. 43-47” are not spoken to the Gentiles.. It’s equally vs. 48 is the next words spoken to the Gentiles. Look at what it is says: And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Why did you subtract from the scripture? You took away from the critical text and based your theology on something that is definitely not there. I believe is symptomatic of searching the scriptures to prove what you believe is right.
I believe this explains why you say water baptism is an add-on. However, according to what you just did here, it’s addition by subtraction. Water baptism only becomes an add-on by taking it out of the Gospel to begin with.

Here’s the context of the words preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10:43, 48. – “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”. This makes it clear they were preached that forgiveness of sins in His name came through the waters of baptism. As I have already said it is not repentance verses baptism as an either or, nor asn option to choose one and discard the other; it is through both repentance and baptism through the water into Jesus Christ, that God forgives our sins.
FYI: When you put the words spoken in succession to the Gentiles (Acts 10:43, 48) and the Gentiles experience recorded in (Acts 10:43-47) does it sound familiar to the great commission as recorded by Mark? I believe, yes it does!
Mark 15-17 – And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17“These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
Naz, I appreciate being able to share my beliefs with you and this has been good for me, because I believe I found a better way to explain why I believe water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. It seems it has always been defined as baptism verses repentance and / or also framed as a legalistic work of man we must do to be saved. I’ve never believed it in this way. I simply just believed it when I first believed and have come into an understanding of the how and why baptism is for the forgiveness of sins as I matured in Christ.
I will send my take on John 3 soon and it will explain why I believe God chose to baptize us with water and Holy Spirit.
I promise it is going to s different take that you probably ever heard before.

No, no, no! From the beginning, this is NOT what I’ve been telling you. You’re simply not seeing what I am saying. I don’t know if it is your fault or mine, but is definitely has persisted throughout our conversation.

I don’t have time right now, but I will try to explain it in the simplest way I possibly can a little later today.

Meanwhile, let me say this: Your sins are forgiven the moment you face God in repentance, period, period, and period! Water baptism’s purpose in the forgiveness of sin happens after we repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Repentance and water baptism are both for the forgiveness of sins, but with a different purpose for the forgiveness of sins.

Regarding post # 204 in which you wrote: “All of this; believing, repenting, baptism with water into Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is work of God that comes by faith.”

As I think you’d agree once someone truly understands that, “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, and the OT is in the NT revealed.” their perception of Messiah and all that He taught and commanded us becomes markedly clarified.

I’ve had a busy day and I don’t have time to go into details, but perhaps this is a good thing for us.

I am convinced that people have dogmatically argued the “repentance and water baptism” part of the gospel for the forgiveness of sins, for so long that it has been framed for someone to choose a position of whether or not “you must be baptized to be saved”; meaning it is an either / or, but not both are possible for both to have a certain part in the forgiveness of sins. Yet, the gospel doesn’t present itself that way, it says both are for the forgiveness of sins. The gospel, however, has it both ways; “repent and be baptized” . . . and the gospel was not accomplished by human reasoning. If the gospel doesn’t accomplish forgiveness of sins through human reasoning, what makes any of us think we can? With God, all things are possible. We either believe what was preached from the beginning of the gospel or not. The word of God apparently believes it to not only be possible for both (repentance and baptism in the name of the Lord) to provide for the forgiveness of sins, but says it is true.

Think about these things. Do they have merit? Or, are you engaged in a conversation with a madman? Time is not on my side today, so I have to cut it short, but I will expound upon this tomorrow.

You’re a man of few words (and many videos, lol), but what you just said is so true. The best example of this is found in john 3:1-10, because what you just said applied to Nicodemus and if it applied to Nicodemus, it applies to us.

I will post a lesson on John 3:1-10 in the near future and I can at least promise it’s not going to be the same old typical stuff everybody argues; water represents the womb of the woman, water represents the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the only way we are born again, born of the water is baptism with water (without explanation . . . I might drive Naz nuts with it, but, then again, I might not . . .

“Meanwhile, let me say this: Your sins are forgiven the moment you face God in repentance, period, period, and period! Water baptism’s purpose in the forgiveness of sin happens after we repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Repentance and water baptism are both for the forgiveness of sins, but with a different purpose for the forgiveness of sins. ”

This simply doesn’t make sense. First you say that your sins are forgiven when you repent, then you say water baptism has a purpose in the forgiveness of sins??? I think you are overthinking this whole thing.

Your statement ” Your sins are forgiven the moment you face God in repentance,” is where you need to stop. In that repentance, belief and faith is contained and that is all that is “required” to be saved. The gospel does not include water baptism. The gospel is Jesus Christ and what He did. Our response on how to receive the gospel and be saved is not the gospel. The good news is not that I can repent and be water baptized. The good news is Jesus died on a cross for my sins and that He is offering me the free gift of salvation with no strings attached. All I have to do is open the door. As was the case with my previous church experiences, there is much too much focus on what we must do instead of what God did and finished.

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, …..
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
1Co 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Forgiveness of sins IS salvation. Sin is what separates us from God. Once He takes that out of the way, it’s done. I don’t think God wants to make this difficult for us, He did the hard part, not us.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Concerning THE ARTICLE OF FAITH ON THE RESURRECTION —
10. “Faith must be of such character as to apprehend and hold fast the truth Peter declares in this verse [Acts 10:43]. It must say ‘in his name.'”

Frank, I like Martin Luther’s take in the link you gave. Here are some more excerpts from it :

“Faith must be of such character as to apprehend and hold fast the truth Peter declares in this verse. It must say “in his name.” That is, must ascribe to Christ alone the entire agency, merit and power responsible for remission of sins; must believe we have forgiveness, not through our own worthiness, but for Christ’s sake alone; must believe that by virtue of Christ’s resurrection we obtain remission of sins, every namable element not from Christ being completely excluded, and the honor given to him alone.”

“What does the work, the ability, of all mankind amount to when it comes to accomplishing or meriting a thing of such magnitude as remission of sins and redemption from death and eternal wrath? How will it compare with the death and shed blood of the Son of God, with the power of his resurrection? How will it divide honors with him in having merit to secure remission of sin and redemption from death? The efficacy of Christ’s death and blood alone God would have preached in all the world and accepted by mankind. Therein he rejects the boasting of the Jews and of all aspirers to holiness through their own works, teaching them they cannot obtain his favor through the Law, or by their own efforts. In Christ’s name alone is remission of sins received, and that through faith.”

“Salvation is ours, Peter teaches, through the preaching of the Gospel, and is received by faith. Faith is the obedience every man must render unto the Lord. By faith he makes himself subject to Christ and partaker of his grace and blessings. Paul also (Rom 1, 5) uses the term “unto obedience of faith.” ”

It doesn’t make sense? Tell that God because it made sense to God when He dealt with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve came out of hiding because they were naked and faced God in their repentance and confessed their sin. God forgave them, but the result of their sin was still visible to God because they were naked, that’s why He clothed them with the flesh of the animals, which shed their blood for them. Even though their sins were forgiven, God provided the atonement and God covered them with it so He could look upon them and not see their nakedness, but instead, see a reflection of His own image; Jesus Christ, the real atonement. Paul understood this and explained it beautifully in Gal 3:27

So go ahead and tell God it doesn’t make sense, your ways are better than His, right?

Simply put, you are reading way too much in the Scripture you quoted. It says of FIRST IMPORTANCE, not of the only importance.

The gospel was preached in the book of Acts and it includes the repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit you will be baptized with.

Kevin, aside from your disparaging comments (again) which I will ignore, what you said doesn’t make sense to me.

On the one hand you say -> “Your sins are forgiven the moment you face God in repentance, period, period, and period!”

and then in the next breath you say ->

“Water baptism’s purpose in the forgiveness of sin happens after we repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

then you say ->

“Repentance and water baptism are both for the forgiveness of sins, but with a different purpose for the forgiveness of sins. ”

This is very confusing theology and does not agree with scripture. If you mean to say that water baptism is when are sins are covered as Adam and Eve were covered, then this is incorrect theology.

Are sins are not “covered”, that is old testament theology. Our sins are erased, taken away, removed. There is no verse in new testament scripture that describes our sins being covered. The only verse that does is Romans 4:7 and that is a direct quote from David from Psalms 32:1.

Galatians 3:27 refers to be baptized in the Spirit and not water baptism. The context from the rest of the chapter indicates this and has no mention of water. Being “clothed” with Christ or putting on Christ is referring to our spiritual union with Him and our new identify in Him, as the next verse indicates,

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

In context Gal 3:27 is referring to our spiritual union with Christ when we place our faith in Him.

Furthermore, water baptism is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 when Paul describes what the gospel is. Water baptism is of lesser importance and therefore does not need to be even mentioned when Paul speaks of what the gospel message is. That is not to say we should not be baptized but it does put water baptism in its place.

Lastly, in 1 Corinthians 1:1, Paul says he was sent to preach the gospel and not baptize.

This passage is difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

I still believe water baptism is a beautiful picture of the spiritual reality of our salvation and I would definitely encourage new believers to be baptized. Apart from that, we probably need to agree to disagree at this time. Thanks.

Let’s try it again.
1) You’re using i COr 1:17 completely out of context. Paul is saying that you were baptized in the name of the one that died for you, regardless of who does the baptizing. That is all he is saying. They reason for this is clear; they were putting to much emphasis on the preacher/teacher to the point they were believing in them, rather than Christ. That is why he said he was glad he didn’t baptize them, so they wouldn’t claim they were baptized in his (Paul’s) name. Paul equated being baptized in his name, as him being viewed as their Savior instead of CHrist.

To understand why Paul said it, we need to look at what the issue he was addressing.

A) vs. 11 – The Corinthians are putting the emphasis of their faith on the preacher/teacher instead of Christ.
B) vs. 12 – It’s not Paul or Apollos, et al that died for you, nor were you baptized in their name. 9They were all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ)
C0 vs. 13 – Paul is glad he didn’t baptize them, because he doesn’t want them to be worshipping him, instead of Christ (this is the problem at the Corinth Church). They were putting importance on who is baptizing them, so much so, it was as if the people would have given him credit of baptizing them in his name instead of Christ (a totally messed up situation, that in some respects the same issue can be observed today. i.e; I know people that have gone to Israel and they were baptized by the prominent leader of their denomination and are very proud as if they were baptized in the leader’s name!) This is what Paul was talking about.
C) vs.17 strictly means it doesn’t matter who baptizes you, it only matters who’s name your baptized in (see vs 13). Jesus’d own disciples baptized His disciples showing the non importance of who does the baptizing but the importance of who’s name you are baptized in.
D) I hope this clears up the misunderstanding and misuse of 1 Cor 1:17
E) Please tell me you at least can see Paul was putting the importance of water baptism in the one who was crucified for them and not taking away from the importance of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:11-17 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Do you understand the OT scriptures give us the types and shadows of the NT reality? If you understand this, how can you not see, the correlation between forgiveness of sins in repentance and the clothing God provided Adam and Eve from the animal sacrifice in the garden to cover their nakedness (stain from sin, Gal 3:27). Baptism should also be viewed as both with water and with spirit as the one new birth experience.

Col 2: 11-13 (covers both water and Spirit) make it clear that God does a spiritual work of cutting away of the filthiness of the flesh with the circumcision made without hands through the waters of baptism and the resurrection through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:4-7 these disciples did what when they heard Paul’s message of the gospel? They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (it’s indisputable evidence)

4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

In the end, We must believe in the forgiveness of our sins through the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus, along with believing this we must repent (forgiven of our sins) and be baptized in His name (washing away our sins forgiven in repentance; regeneration of the flesh) and baptized with His Spirit (for renewing and resurrection) with faith that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.

Let’s cut to the chase. Peter preached the gospel message in its entirety on the Day of Pentecost.

I don’t want and we don’t need to argue anything other than the two questions below about what Peter said.

If your theology is true, then you can prove it within the scriptures, but if your theology fails to prove it, then believe the gospel Peter preached, whether or not you understand it, because it will save you.

1) What is not true within the gospel message preached by Peter between Acts 2:14-40? Name the verses that are not true and why they are not true?

2) Why should we not believe everything Peter said?

I
Kevin

For your convenience:

Acts 2: 14-40 14But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15“For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;

18EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.

19‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.

20‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.

21‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’

22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24“But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

25“For David says of Him,
‘I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE;
FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.

26‘THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED;
MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE;

27BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

28‘YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE;
YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.’

29“Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30“And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. 32“This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

34“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,

35UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
36“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”

The Ingathering

37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

For thus the Lord GOD/YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, has said, “In repentance and rest you will be saved, in quietness and trust is your strength.” But you were not willing, (Isaiah 30:15)

“You shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Do men fall and not get up again? Does one turn away and not repent?” (Jeremiah 8:4)

“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD/YHWH. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Ezekiel 18:32)

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus/Yahshua came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and put your trust in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)

Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. (Matthew 11:20)

“And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)

Our salvation stems from Divine Sovereign Volition. It’s completely wrought by God in Christ/Messiah alone. We as sinners who receive this gift of God’s grace when we repent and believe [John 3:33-36] are instructed by Messiah to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [Matthew 3:1-12], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20) Just as His first coming was heralded; we are to herald His Second Coming [Daniel 7:9-27]. Apostle Paul stated, “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:20-21) Messiah Himself said, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32) Thinking of His parable about The Prodigal Son Messiah reminds us, “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7) As it’s written: Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed on the basis of His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:44-47) And His disciples remain faithful.: But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus/Yahshua whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (Acts 5:29-32) Ensuring that we follow Messiah’s example and walk as He walks remains vital for “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ/Yahshua Messiah. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 1:3-5)

Everybody is mixing Church Dogma, Water ritualism (baptism/washing of hands) and Old Testament scriptures and trying, IN VAIN I hasten to add, to incorporate all these things with Jesus Christ. Peter was emulating John the Baptist with the ritual water cleansing, not Jesus, Jesus never baptized and never preached water baptism and only did the John The Baptist ritual as showmanship for the people because the people believed John was a Prophet and so for the righteousness the people believed in he was baptized; that’s all.

It’s Christ himself. And he came into this world to be the truth about God and the truth about man and he was the truth about God because he was the truth about man, because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about God.

And the only thing Nicodemus that demonstrates the validity of my claim to be who I am, the son of God, is the authorship, the origin of what I do and what I say and what I am. My father who lives in me, he does the work. You see Nicodemus, I just happened to make man that way as God and I came into this world, though God to play the role of man so you’d know how I intended you should live. Any questions Nicodemus?

You see the Lord Jesus came magnificently to demonstrate the proposition, the divine logic of which is absolutely imperative to a man’s humanity. And in explaining this to you, I’m simply preaching the gospel. Don’t please imagine that the gospel is simply come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven; that isn’t the gospel. You will only have your sins forgiven if you are prepared for the guilty sinner that you are, come to the Lord Jesus and accept him into your life for the savior he came to be but THAT IS NOT GOSPEL. That simply lets you off the hook; that simply changes your destination; that simply trades hell for heaven but Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world simply to get you and me out of hell and into heaven; he came into this world supremely to God out of heaven in to you and to me.

You don’t imagine that God takes any pleasure in having a heaven filled with men and women redeemed in the blood of his incarnate son who will be as useless in heaven as they were on earth? Stacked in bundles of 10, dusted with DDT once a week by a bunch of angels, do you imagine that’s what heaven’s going to be like? Heaven is going to be populated with men, women, boys and girls, who’ve been restored to their redeemed and now true humanity because in the day that the Lord Jesus comes John in his 1st epistle 3rd chapter first 2 verses: beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God; we never ever deserved it, we were guilty men, members of a fallen race, nasty caricatures, telling by what we do and say and are, nothing but lies about our maker and yet in his infinite mercy reached a hand from heaven ….pierced with nails upon a cross that he might receive us back to himself, acquitted and forgiven that we might be restored to our true humanity and become by adoption members of his family. Beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God and he goes on in that 2nd verse of the 3rd chapter of his 1st epistle to say: We do not yet know exactly what we will be but this at least we do know that when we see him we’ll see him as he is and we’ll be like him, we’ll be like him, forever.

Well, in the day that you see him as he is and you’re like him what have you got back to? Genesis chapter 1, for you were made in his likeness. Simply means that salvation’s gone full cycle.

On the basis of a redemptive act precipitating a regenerative purpose puts God back into the man there’s a consummating climax when at last, delivered not only from the penalty of your sin and the power of sin, you’re delivered from the very presence of sin and your whole body, soul, spirit, mind, emotion and will is once more monopolized by the one who as the creator made man to be inhabited by his maker. And the Lord Jesus for 33 years in the flesh and blood of his humanity demonstrated the proposition.

Here’s the proposition. It isn’t complicated; you’ll think it is but it isn’t. And having spelled it out to you if it’s still a little ambiguous I’ll illustrate it in a way that couldn’t possibly fail to understand the simplicity which is in Jesus.

Here’s the proposition; we’ll take it stage by stage.
Every demand that God makes of a man is from God’s point of view completely logical. Now that’s the first part of the proposition. Now let’s pause there for a moment. What is the demand that God makes upon a man?

It isn’t that you go to church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday; it isn’t that you tithe your income or put a dollar in the plate; it isn’t that you memorize 25 verses a week; it isn’t even that you feed the hungry; the demand that God makes upon a man is spelled out, Old Testament, “Be ye Holy”; and getting a little hot around the neck, you say how holy and God continues, “even as I am holy”. Oh, I see. New Testament, last verse, Matthew 5: The Lord Jesus speaking: “Be ye perfect” and getting hot around the neck, how perfect? And the Lord Jesus responds, “even as your father in heaven is perfect”. Any complaints? In whose image did God make man? His own. In whose likeness? His own. In his own perfect image and in his own perfect likeness and all God asks of you is that you perform; is that you actually deliver; is that you intelligently fulfill that intelligent purpose for which I intelligently created you. Having created you in my likeness, be holy even as I am holy; having created you in my perfection be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect. I just happen to make that way, any complaints?

Why shouldn’t God demand that we actually produce?

Alright, that’s the first part of the proposition. Be ye holy as I am holy; be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect and every demand that God makes of a man from God’s point of view is completely logical.

Here’s the second part. Only from man’s point of view in his fallen condition is it utterly unreasonable. And you know it’s unreasonable. That’s why you began to complain in your own heart; you didn’t say a word but even as I made those demands that God has the legitimate right to make of a man whom he made in his own absolute likeness, you began to argue in your own heart . That man can’t be telling me that I have to be perfect; does he believe in sinless perfection? Because in your heart you already settled for the fact that man, in his fallen condition, is totally incompetent and morally disqualified for implementing that purpose for which God made man. And so in your heart you say, he can’t demand that of me. Why not? Because, you’re a member of a fallen race of fallen men. And although his demands from God’s point of view is completely logical, from man’s point of view in his fallen, un-regenerative lost condition, utterly unreasonable.

Here’s the 3rd part of the proposition: In the divine logic there’s a hidden factor that is absent in human reasoning. And that hidden factor present in the divine logic, absent in human reasoning represents the margin of what is divinely possible and otherwise can not but be humanly unreasonable and that hidden factor present in divine logic, absent in human reasoning, is God, himself. Who created man is such a way that the presence of the creator within the creature is indispensable to his humanity. Who never ever anticipated that man would function apart from the presence of the holy spirit within the human spirit, giving access to the human soul and allowed without hindrance as God to teach the mind, control the emotions and direct the will and so govern behavior. So that there would be only one possible explanation for that man’s behavior, God in the man. That’s the divine logic.

Now let me illustrate. Why does an oil lamp need oil to produce light? Don’t make it complicated. Why does an oil lamp need oil to produce light? The answer in all its sheer simplicity is that it was made that way. And you don’t need any further explanation. It was made that way. You see somebody a long time ago discovered that in oil there was the potential to produce light so he scratched his head because all it needed was the means whereby the means of that potential could be released. And he thought of an oil lamp, not because an oil lamp can produce light; it cannot but simply because an oil lamp was so designed to be the means whereby the potential in oil could be released and produce light. That’s why an oil lamp needs oil. That’s not very complicated.

Why does a car need gas? Please don’t make it complicated; it was made that way. You see along time ago somebody discovered that in gas there was the potential to release energy which in turn could turned into motion. All it needed was the means whereby that energy could be released so somebody scratched his head, thought up the internal combustion engine, not because an internal combustion engine can produce motion, it can not. But simply because it was designed, so engineered to be the means whereby the potential in gas could be released so that the energy could be turned into motion. That’s why your car needs gas.

Why does a man need God? Don’t make it complicated. He was made that way. A long time ago, God wanted in man a creature whom he made through whom the divine potential could be released, producing, by what man says, does and is, righteousness. Not because a man engineered the way he was with a body and a soul and a spirit could himself produce righteousness, he can not. But because man was so engineered to be the means whereby the divine potential, God himself, could be released and produce righteousness. That’s why a man needs God.

Now tell me this. What happens when you detach an oil lamp from oil? Well you’ve still got an oil lamp on your hands but it doesn’t behave like one. For all the light you’d get from it you might just as well have a cabbage on the table.

Tell me this. What happens when you detach a car from gas? Most of you know, you’ve tried it. And it’s very embarrassing especially in heavy traffic. You discover that you’ve still got a car on your hands but it doesn’t behave like one. If you want it to go, you push it. And it’ll go just as far and as fast as you push it. And it’s then that you wished you’d bought one of those little ones, that you put on instead of getting in.

Tell me this. What happens when you detach a man from God? What happened when Adam fell, believed the devil’s lie that a man could be man without God, morally adult with the need to be spiritually alive, be good without God, competent to discern himself apart from God, between good and evil. What happens when a man is detached from God, even more embarrassing; you’ve still got a man on your hands but he won’t behave like one. Never talk about a man behaving like an animal, the animal kingdom doesn’t deserve that kind of insult. Did you ever see an alcoholic horse? I mean don’t kid yourself. Did you ever see an alcoholic horse? Well of course not, you say, there’s no horse that stupid, that ever walked this planet which would lie in its own vomit; it takes MAN to do that. Without God. Did you ever see a dog shoot its own brain with hard acid? Well, you’d say no, because there’s no dog that ever walked this earth that was that stupid that it would take drugs and destroy its own brain. It takes junior high, teenager kids and the evil creatures that push the stuff on the streets to do that, MAN. Without God.

Now if I said to an oil lamp, “produce light”, that would be utterly unreasonable. But if I put oil in the lamp completely logical. If I said to a car, “go”, without gas, utterly unreasonable. But let me fill the tank, completely logical. Let me talk to a bunch of unregenerate people who never knew the joy of sins forgiven, to whom the holy spirit has never been restored, God absent from the man and I try to legislate righteousness. I try to produce a quality of behavior that’s worthy of a creature made in his own maker’s image and I say “be holy” like the God who made you in his own likeness, “be perfect” like your father in heaven, he created you. Utterly unreasonable. But put God in the man, completely logical. See, if you’ve got an oil lamp without oil and you want to produce light, put oil in it. If you’ve got a car that won’t go because it has no gas, fill the tank. If you’ve got boys, girls, men and women who fight and scream and hate, steal and lie and you want them to behave, in such a way that they discharge their responsibility, as those who were made in God’s likeness, because they’re empty, of God, then put God in them. Now you know what the gospel’s all about.

That’s why the Lord Jesus said, I am come that you might have life, just what dead men need, it’s the only cure for death. It’s death that abolished life. And when the Lord Jesus was manifest,(IN LIFE I HASTEN TO ADD, IN LIFE) it was to the end that death might be abolished and immortality and life be brought to light. Well we’re very nearly through, not quite, very nearly. Stick it out. You see we just touched very, very briefly upon the divine logic in the animal kingdom with a body and a soul but no human spirit but within the soul, a computerized behavior program called instinct governing migratory paths, feeding habits, mating seasons, building skills, that computerized program that bring the salmon after 3 and a half years way out in the Pacific and up the Alaska coast back to the mouth of the Columbia river to fight their way back to get to the precise, not the approximate, the precise place where they placed as a little baby fish nearly 4 years ago., spawn and die. That’s why you can stand off the coast of San Diego in southern California and watch the whales at a certain part of the year go down to a little cove off the Mexican coast where year after year they reproduce. That’s why you can go to a bunch of trees near Los Altos, not far from San Francisco and see butterflies and they’ll be there every summer but they don’t reproduce there; they reproduce, for a butterfly an incredible distance away, 200 miles. They lay eggs, the eggs become a caterpillar, the caterpillar becomes a chrysalis, and the chrysalis breaks open and becomes a new generation butterfly. And that new generation butterfly will go 200 miles back to that clump of trees. Now tell me this, if you were a butterfly and then an egg and then a caterpillar and then a chrysalis and then a new generation butterfly, do you think you’d find your way back to Los Altos? Some of you can’t even find you way around the place you live.

How does he do it? Well you shrug your shoulders and say instinct. Instinct.

Man was built with a human spirit to be inhabited by God himself so that by his free moral option, given the right to say yes or no, the holy spirit may invade the human spirit and from within the human spirit, gain access to his human soul and as God himself play the role in man’s soul that instinct plays in the soul of the bee. So that with the same mathematical accuracy, governed by God within the man, by what we do and say and are, we’ll reflect his mind, his will, his purpose, always his point of view. So if we were man in normality, we could say what the Lord Jesus could say then: he that had seen me has seen my father. As perfect as my father in heaven, as holy as God whose glory is revealed in my humanity.

You see the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus was not that he didn’t tell lies, though he never didn’t; the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus was not that he did not steal though he never stole,; the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus was not that he did not commit adultery, though he never did. The sinlessness of the Lord Jesus as man was that he never ever allowed there to be at any time any possible explanation for anything he ever did, said or was but the father as God in the man. That was his sinlessness. As my father sent me, I’m going to send you.

Can you imagine what would happen if in a bee swarm of 80.000 bees, suddenly, the rigid interlock between the instinctive thrust and the bee soul were to snap in every member of that 80,000 swarm? So that every bee in an awful moment of catastrophe became ego-bee-centric? Every bee for himself. I don’t want to be governed by instinct, I’m free, to do as I please.
So the nurse bees stop nursing the eggs, and feeding, they’d say the little suckers can go and get their own food; not going to work my fingers to the bone feeding them; and of course, the air conditioners stop flapping as they stand flapping all day say here they can do their own flapping, and the worker bees would march up and down with red flags saying food for the workers, every bee for himself, mastered by none. What would happen to that bee swarm? I don’t have to tell you, exactly what has already happened to human society. That’s why when I get on a plane, I’ll be frisked, my hand baggage will be put through an electronic device to make absolutely certain I’m not carrying a bomb to blow up my fellow man. When I’m accommodated in a motel downtown in some major city, in this cultured society, they say please don’t go out at night. I say why not? Are there bears, lions? No, your fellow man waiting to mug you. That’s why we live at this very moment on the threshold of nuclear annihilation.

There would only be one possible solution to the bee swarm. The restoration of the rigid interlock between the instinctive thrust and the bee soul. Then a bee could act intelligently as part of a corporate whole. There’s only one possible solution to human dilemma, get God back into the man and let that God be God.

Oil in the lamp, gas in the car, Christ himself , not his example, not his teachings, not just the beatitudes, Christ himself in the Christian. Putting God back into the man. To be king, in his kingdom. That’s the gospel. Not just of becoming a Christian but being the Christian you say you have become. Not you getting out of hell and into heaven but Christ getting out of heaven into you so that it becomes demonstrably obvious to everybody in your presence that he’s alive, not in the then and there but clothed with your humanity, in the here and now. Then your life will only have one possible explanation, God in the man. You’ll live miraculously, the impossible life of Jesus Christ, the astonishing preacher.

“First, Peter begins with the inception of the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, suggesting how it was promised in the Scriptures, being declared by the prophets, that Christ should come with A NEW DOCTRINE (emphasis added), confirming it by miracles; also that he must suffer and die and rise from the dead, establishing thus a new kingdom; and how the promise was fulfilled. The apostle portrays it (i.e.; A NEW DOCTRINE) as a comforting message, a Gospel of joy and grace, a message not accusing, threatening and terrifying with a vision of God’s wrath for our sin, as did Moses with his doctrine of the Law [Law of God].” – Easter Monday, Epistle Sermons, Vol. II – Martin Luther

For He Himself [Messiah] is our peace, who made both groups [Jew and Gentile] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall [in the temple],
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances [traditions, precepts & commandments of men], so that in Himself He might create the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, in Himself having put to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16)

TRUE EVANGELISM IN THE BOOK OF ACTS:

“But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Messiah would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus/Yahshua, the Messiah appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU as He raised up me FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. [Deuteronomy 18:15-19]'” (Acts 3:18-22)

It’s rather presumptuous to say that Moses in Deuteronomy was talking about Jesus as the writer of Acts 3 claims……after all there are prophets upon prophets throughout the Old Testament and after Samuel, which the writer of Acts 3 also alludes to, there were School for Prophets raised up. So what Prophet was Moses speaking about. I submit he was speaking to any prophet that was raised up according to religious tradition and clearly says the only way to tell whether the prophet is true or false is if what he says comes to pass, Well would that ‘come to pass’ in that day or week or month or year…there’s no time limit mentioned, which presumably did not mean hundreds or thousands of years in the future; otherwise one could never know if the Prophet was true or false. You quote the prophets all the time maybe it was one of them but I don’t think so. I would expect Moses was speaking about his Prophet successor, Joshua, others think it could have been Deborah but this was only when Moses died so he was speaking to any prophet who came after him. A Prophet remember was made of man and designated by men to be the messenger of God and so it was a duty to heed the words of the Prophets as religious tradition dictated all those years right up to the time when the Pharisees asked Jesus by whose authority Jesus did what he did and preached what he preached. By whose authority do you act? And you remember his answer: from where did the John the Baptist’s authority come, man or heaven? So to extrapolate that Moses was talking about Jesus was a stretch for the writer of Acts 3 and a stretch for anybody accepting the stretch as absolute certainty when that discernment is speculation to make scripture appear to match the prevailing thought.

And God said to Moses, I’ll raise up for them a prophet like you from their kinsmen. I’ll tell him what to say and he will pass on to them everything I command him. And anyone who won’t listen to my words spoken by him, I will personally hold responsible. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Now Acts 3:22 says For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Really? I don’t think so.

Is it not a historical fact the Hebrew nation of Israel was conquered and taken into captivity and delivered from captivity time and again throughout human history? I would assume you would agree. Is it also not a historical fact these ancient people were dispersed to the four corners of the earth? Is it no a fact that Hitler tried to wipe them off the face of the earth? Is it not a fact that these people were gathered back to the land that was promised to them by God? And, I ask you and anyone else how would you need any more proof than the nation of Israel, whom the ancient writings of scripture declare is God’s chosen people, that there is a God?

Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.

Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is “overwhelming,” and leaves “no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.”

The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god El, the pottery is in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing Israelite villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones. (IT is worth noting here that the Hebrew Name for God is EL-[strength, might or power] The basic form of EL appears over 250 times in the Tanakh; El Echad the One God: [Mal. 2:10] Echad means one in Hebrew; El Hanne’eman, The Faithful God(Deut. 7:9); El Emet, the God of Truth (Ps. 31:5); El Tsaddik, The Righteous God (Isa. 45:21); El Shaddai, The all sufficient God); In Genesis 17:1, YHVH said to Abram: “I am El Shaddai. Walk before me and be perfect.” So why did the Lord choose to reveal himself using this distinctive name to Abram?

It is considered possible that those Canaanites who started regarding themselves as the Israelites were joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt, possibly carrying stories that made it into Exodus. As the tribe expanded, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps sparking the tales of conflict in Joshua and Judges.

William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.”

Now to your point: “I ask you and anyone else how would you need any more proof than the nation of Israel, whom the ancient writings of scripture declare is God’s chosen people, that there is a God?”

First the ancient writings were written by the Israelites who themselves declared that they were the chosen people of God, that declaration made them the enemies of all the rest of the world and moist hated among nations because under the guise of God’s Chosen People, the Israelites destroyed their enemies by slaughter and razing their settlements without mercy to the ground with the symbol that spawned the declaration called the spirit of God given to the Israelites, fire. And under the religious tradition developed even that far back the fire was kindled and kept in perpetual ember state on the altar thus dedicated to the God for the Spirit of God that God gave to the Israelites as a covenant between his people and the fire embers they maintained so it would not go out day or night.

And it was the arrogance of the Declaration by the Israelites in conjunction with the new found spirit of Fire that used fire to defeat every people in the known world who did not have such a weapon as Fire because the rest of the world had yet to discover the control of fire as it was first discovered and controlled by the Israelites and their was no weapon against this formidable weapon Fire.and why every surviving people in the world became bitter enemies with Israelites and the nations of the world had a common theme against the Israelites: to defeat them, enslave them and to Fling their Far Flung Fire Fiends to the uttermost regions of the earth hated by the whole world for their no show of mercy, non-compassion and without any sense of common morality for the rest of humanity. They were indeed an egocentric people and their use of fire to kill and capture

So the God you refer to, that the Israelites became the chosen people of, was really an adjunct to the God of the Canaanites, borrowed. Many offerings and rituals were then designed to be offered to the God of Fire, not the least of which was cooked food which again without fire nobody else had fire. The most common offering is called burnt offerings or sacrifices.

i. God had a wise timing in bringing the law of the sacrifices at this time. Before the Tabernacle of Meeting was built, there was no one place of sacrifice, and the procedures for sacrifice couldn’t really be codified. But now with the completion of the Tabernacle, Israel could bring their sacrifice to one place and follow the same procedures for each sacrifice.

ii. The fist seven chapters of Leviticus deal with personal, voluntary offerings. Chapters 1 through 5 are mostly instructions to the people who bring the offering, and chapters 6 and 7 are mostly instructions to the priests concerning offerings.

And so the Israelites became an egocentric people using the Declaration of God Chosen people based on Fire that they used indiscriminately against their enemies and thereby the world became the enemy of Israel and Israel the enemy of the whole world hated from one end to the other as their self centered mindset and ferocity knew no bounds either in ego or fire-wars to conquer, burn and raze every people, every cattle and every possession in every land.

This doesn’t prove God but it proves the ego and hatred of the Chosen People, chosen by its own declaration.

The Jews were brought from the four corners of the earth to their homeland without any power of themselves to so. So, let us stop with all the other stuff about this and that is true or not. This has happened in the lat 60 years. It’s a fact that eyewitnesses that are still alive today can account for. IT HAPPENED WITH AND BY A POWER OTHER THAN THE POWER THEY POSSESSED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT POSESS THE POWER TO DO SO (The Jews were powerless and were being annihilated). I submit, this happened by the power of the Almighty God, and it was prophesied long before . . you and I came along. The fact there is an Israel today, proves there is a God, the God of Israel is God! . . .and, by faith, is our God too,

In May 1948, Israel became an independent state after Israel was recognized by the United Nations as a country in its own right within the Middle East. If relations in pre-war Palestine had been fraught with difficulties, these difficulties paled into insignificance after Israel became a state in its own right. Immediately on being granted its independence, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab nations. If Israel had faltered at this first hurdle, she would have ceased to exist as a state regardless of what the United Nations had decreed.

Israel was attacked on the same day it gained its independence – May 14th. The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel. With such a combined force attacking Israel, few would have given the new country any chance of survival.

The scene was set for almost perpetual conflict between the Arab nations and Israel that culminated in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars. But Israel maintained its independence by the Law of Conquests which state that when a stronger man overtakes the castle of the weaker man, the stronger prevails. Such was then in 1948, ’53, ’67 and ’73. And remained true when Russia invaded Crimea and so on does the victory go to the victor. It has been this way since the Gods were invented and Holy men determine the dates according to the satisfaction of religious scholars that the prophecies are accurate direct to the day and year. Even though the Gregorian calendar has 365 days for a years, in order to get the year dates to line up with Pentecost the year then becomes 360 days in order to match the bible: From the date when Ezekiel measured the visionary temple in Ezekiel 40 unto 1948 when Israel became a nation are 1260 plus 1260 years; it happens that 1260 plus 1260 days is an important seven-year period in the bible, referred to in Rev. 11-13 and elsewhere. (360 days x 7 = 7 years.)

Bible enthusiasts like Nostradamus conspiracists race around the prophecies to fit an event into their conspiracy or prophecy as the case may be; the second world war, the first world war, the new nation of Israel; it has to fit; it must fit and it will fit come hell or high water or god working through the prophets who went to school to study how to become a prophet.

It’s all so clearly cut and dry according to believers who “see it” because they believe it……………..
while atheists believe it because they “see it.” Knowledge of seeing it confirms it. Belief never confirms anything until they find another mouse-hole to place it in only to believe it yet again.

Sorry,Kevin I cannot buy what you are selling it’s too unbelievably supernaturalfragilisticexpialidocious…. 🙂

Adj,
That’s a whole lot of ropa-dope that doesn’t change the facts. It was prophesied long before it happened and even if wasn’t prophesied, the fact they exist today as a nation is nothing less than incredible. It is cause to see and believe their God, is God.

I do agree with you that all the other gods were invented and never existed. I also agree with your observation about people trying to make things fit prophetically, but that is irrelevant to the fact, against all odds, Israel is a nation today and they became one by another power than their own.

There is no scripture that states our forgiven sins need to be washed away or are washed away by baptism. I think you have concluded this because you are trying to somehow understand why people were baptized after they are saved. By claiming this is what baptism does, you have “added” water baptism to the gospel, or from your view made it “part” of the gospel. The concept of breaking down the gospel in “parts” concerns me but I won’t comment further on this.

When a person’s sins are forgiven, there is nothing else that needs to be done to make that forgiven person more forgiven or more clean. It is the act of forgiveness itself that takes away the sins and “washes” them away. The blood of Jesus forgives sins and takes them away, or washes them away permanently. Washing is a metaphor, the blood of Jesus is not a bar of soap that we need to rinse off.

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Eph_1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col_1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The above verses are clear that the blood of Jesus alone forgives sins and washes them away. Forgiven sins do not need to be washed away by water baptism. This is not biblical theology. If the act of water baptism takes away sins, then we have added to the gospel a work we must do for our salvation which is contradictory to salvation by faith apart from works. Turning to God in repentance and faith is NOT a work. Water baptism is a physical act of dunking someone in water and is a work, an action, that requires a tub, a baptizer, physical water etc… Repentance towards God and faith is something that happens in our spirit or our heart and is not a work.

As for regeneration, our flesh is not regenerated. If you include our minds, will and emotions in terms of “flesh”, well definitely something happens there, there is a renewing of the mind that begins to take place if that’s what you mean. Even so, I don’t see how water baptism would do that. The renewing of our minds comes from the knowledge of Christ, not water baptism. As for the flesh, it’s still the same flesh, although now we are sons of God and God expects us to take care of our bodies since it is a temple of the Holy Spirit. But the flesh itself did not regenerate in any way. Our spirits (hearts) were regenerated though, as the prophet said …

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

The “washing of regeneration and renewal” is by the Holy Spirit. It is not taught in scripture that water baptism regenerates our flesh or our spirit in any way. You believe this because you are trying to give water baptism some spiritual significance that is just not there.

So why did they baptize then ? Well for one thing, Jesus said to go and make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So disciples (believers, saved people) are to be baptized when they are saved. It’s just an external means to identify with being in Christ, nothing more. Jesus told the disciples to do this, and they did, and so do we. That doesn’t mean the water baptism saves people. Jesus told his disciples to celebrate the Lord’s supper, and they did, and so do we. The Lord’s supper doesn’t save us.

Kevijn:
That other power is the United Nations; AKA, at that time as, The League of Nations under direct influence of the British Mandate. Having said that however,
of the three dogmas in the children of Abraham: Muslims, Jews and Christians, I like the Jews the best. When I say I like them, I think all three religions are an insult to humanity but Jews don’t do quite as much complaining and privilege seeking as the other two dogmas and more importantly; whereas Muslims and Christians want everybody else to believe what they believe, Jews don’t give a damn what you believe just as long as you leave them alone. And I like that. They’re content with ferocious bobbing and henpecking at the Wailing Wall

NOW, given the history of the Jews, it’s easy to understand why they would want their own autonomous state but the problem is, it’s in the wrong place. Because if there was any justice in this world Israel would occupy half of Germany. But Israel is not really about Justice is it? It’s really about Jerusalem, which is really about scripture and prophecy which, as we know, is really about insanity.

Now Jerusalem, of course, is a sacred city to all three dogmas in the children of Abraham: Muslims, Christians and Jews, which is frankly the best argument I’ve heard for bulldozing the place and pushing all the rubble into the sea and then sowing salt into the ground so that nothing will grow there for a thousand years.

And why should we even care when Israel has ignored so many United Nations Resolutions telling them to get out of the occupied territories which they just can’t bring themselves to do because of Jerusalem and the Temple and Scripture and Prophecy and the fact that they have an awful lot of very angry religious Jews on their hands. Ahhh but we have the Laws of Conquest and the Six Day War of ’67 to thank for the takeover of Jerusalem and the religious perspective, as we all know, is a bone in the jaws of the pitbulls; er, arrgghh I mean “people of the book”.

Because peace in the Middle East, well, it’s a lovely dream in theory but as “people of the book” we have to live in the real world of miracles and divine revelations unfortunately, it’s just reality, I’m afraid.

You know I think the Jews would do themselves a huge favor if they came to their senses and let go of Jerusalem; it doesn’t belong to them and they’re only holding onto it because of religion which is the worse possible reason to do anything on this planet because they say the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Well it’s a straight line between religious politics and bloodshed, always has been, always will be.

Keep the Jewish State by all means; I like the Jewish State. I like the people. BUT they don’t need Jerusalem. They’re bigger than that.

Frank:
Re: post 235:
The writer of Deut 18:18 was alluding to a Prophet like Moses but that could have been any prophet of the hundreds who came forth marching to the beat of their own drum or importance, Elisha, Enoch, Elijah, the Baptist, Jesus Muhammed, Joshua, Deborah who became the Judge of and for all the people after Moses died. Pick your poison or pick your champion, Hitler to some, Mother Theresa to others, roll the dice and to each his own perspective, could’ve been Joseph Smith and his Golden Plates, Martin Luther, Nostradamus or Leonardo Da Vinci, could even be Donald Trump.

“Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.

Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is “overwhelming,” and leaves “no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.” ”

Leo, you plagiarized this from Wikipedia, that’s not a very good source of biblical archaeology. If you are going to use archaeology to disprove the exodus from Egypt do some real research with real sources instead of cheap references from Wiki or the internet. If you think Wikipedia is going to have the last word on whether the exodus is real, you must be drunk or a complete imbecile.

As usual you focus only on one absolute certainty in your derisive nature to disparage and discredit.

But what you fail to see are the trees referenced make up the compilation forest of Wikipedia which has immense value in the internet world. What I did not use was the space in my commentary to list all the reputable sources acknowledged in Wiki Commentaries and so you criticize the all the trees that make up the forest of Wikipedia while you harp only about the trees to prove your contentious nature. Baptism in today’s world is useless and means nothing but it is a tree you bark up in order to pick fights with others who have differing viewpoints. You are like a cunning fox that compliments someone for well written comments to get them on your side until you are then able to pick the comment apart at a later time by stealth trying to command the moment.

Your baptism argument is a tree and shows how useless your perspective is when you only argue about branches and leaves forgetting entirely about the root and the fatness and the wealth of the one to whom the trees and branches testify

However here are the references from the Wiki article. But here’s a quote for your accusation: It’s a quote that’s nearly as famous as the word plagiarism itself: “To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.”.
I glean what I research and like Jesus Christ himself, I interpret perfectly what I glean including the bible. When you attain such a level, I wait for that day.
The following trees of reference you can debate one by one if you want but you have not persuaded me and I dare say neither Kevin nor Frank that you have any argument more convincing than what they try to reveal their understanding regarding your incessant insistence that your baptism belief is the gold standard.

What part of “know” don’t you understand that anybody with a background in superstition and supernaturalism can hardly be expected to talk about what they know?

MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS say Exodus is about a history that never happened.

“I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.” (Ezekiel 20:34-35)

I would like to point out that I have not shied away from any questions or arguments you put forth. I am pointing this out because you totally ignored the two fair and reasonable questions that I ask you in the most straightforward way I could think of. Also, your arguments that baptism is not a work of God are easily rebutted. I am happy to do so, but I respectfully request you answer the fair and reasonable questions I’ve already put forth. If, for some reason, you don’t agree these questions are fair and reasonable, then explain to me why they are not and I will either re-phrase or withdraw them, Fair enough?

Quote:
Naz,
Let’s cut to the chase. Peter preached the gospel message in its entirety on the Day of Pentecost.
I don’t want and we don’t need to argue anything other than the two questions below about what Peter said.
If your theology is true, then you can prove it within the scriptures, but if your theology fails to prove it, then believe the gospel Peter preached, whether or not you understand it, because it will save you.
1) What is not true within the gospel message preached by Peter between Acts 2:14-40? Name the verses that are not true and why they are not true?
2) Why should we not believe everything Peter said?
Unquote:

I will also like to point out Peter confirms the gospel message he preached on the day of Pentecost was by the Holy Spirit and the message, being the word of the Lord, endures forever, meaning the gospel message he preached will never change!!! (1 Peter 1: 11-12, 25).

Naz, Can you or can you not answer the questions? If, not explain why?

The issue I am taking up with you is that you say you believe what you see, yet you have not acknowledged the fact that the Jews were gathered up from the four corners of the earth and returned to their promise land. That is incredible!!! If you were true to your word (you believe what you see), you would have acknowledge it. You didn’t, therefore your credibility to believe what you see is called into question of rather or not you are truthful to yourself, not me, but to yourself. You might like to read my posts, I was careful not to mention God at all, but in place of claiming it was God tat gathered them from the four corners, I used the word “power”. If you believe your own words, then you only needed to accept what I said was true, because it was and is true. It is incredible Israel is a nation, when they did not have the power of themselves to become one. Right? or are you going to give me a history lesson that is irrelevant to my comments?

Baptism serves a vital purpose in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom as proclaimed by both John the Baptist and Messiah. For one it heralds both Advents of Yahshua in His roles as Son of God, Messiah, Suffering Servant of YHWH and Lord of Lords King of Kings. Second, Messiah Himself commands it of us in His Great Commission.

Kevin, I don’t refute what the scriptures say, I just don’t agree with your interpretation. From my perspective I have defended my beliefs with ample scripture and explanation. We both read the same scriptures but our understanding is different.

As for your 2 questions, I presume they are these :

1) What is not true within the gospel message preached by Peter between Acts 2:14-40? Name the verses that are not true and why they are not true?

Answer: I think all the verses are true but I don’t agree with your interpretation. Peter preached Christ and Him crucified and raised up to verse 36 or 37. Then he told the crowd what they must do to receive this salvation. The gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ, that is what saves. To repent and have faith towards God is how we receive it. I know what Acts 2:38 says but I need to take all of scripture into account to understand what saves me and how I receive this salvation. If you are relying on Acts 2:38 alone, then you are building a theology on 1 verse of scripture. I already explained how the scriptures we have are written in Greek originally and that sometimes we need to go back to the Greek to get more understanding or meaning. You seemed to shrugged that off and even made a snarky comment about it. I don’t think it’s wrong to investigate some of the words that are used in the scripture to get a clearer meaning. This is just like the Bereans is it not, that searched the scriptures to see if those things were true ?

2) Why should we not believe everything Peter said?

Answer: I believe everything Peter said, I never said I didn’t.

OK I answered your questions. Now what about this washing away of forgiven sins. Please show me 1 scripture where this is clearly shown.

Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Mk 10:38

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50

the metaphor of drinking the cup(i.e., being baptized) is used in the Old Testament to refer to acceptance of an assigned destiny.

Psalm 11:6
And rains upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone, a scorching wind their allotted cup. (Their baptism)

Matt 20:22
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

In John’s account in chapter 3 we have Jesus baptizing whereas not long afterward John explicitly mentions that Jesus did not baptize.

When Jesus commissioned the disciples to go forth and mark them with the baptism of the Father, son and holy spirit does not stop there but continues that dialogue with “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…………….Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:”

In other words: “God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you”

Frank: If you miss the metaphorical aspect of many of Jesus’ messages literal repetition puts you at a disadvantage of understanding the big picture.

Take care. I do acknowledge that your video posts of the six day war and Yom Kippur war took me back to the days where as a control technician switcher, I watched and aired the war from the Master Control Room of a major television station national affiliate; a front row seat as the war aired, in as real time as was possible in those days. I was very close to the events as they happened. That same year we began broadcasting in color independent of the Broadcast National for the first time, our first film was Star Trek; that same year stereo was introduced and the 8 track stereo swept the nation in new wave of awesome stereophonic symphony of sound, mono became so last century overnight lol.

Naz
Here is the scriptural support that the blood of Jesus washes your sins away through the waters of baptism in the name of the Lord: Ananias said to a repented Paul: – Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. (Acts 22:16).

Paul’s sins, like everyone that repents, were already forgiven in his repentance, before Ananias commanded him to be baptized in the name of the Lord to wash them away.

Frank:
I could not listen to this lecturer for more than a few minutes as his talk was so haltingly interrupted by his accent, it affected my breathing and I had to stop listening to him. I would have to have an inhaler to listen more than 2 minutes and even then I couldn’t follow his rhythm either in language or understanding. I was surprised there were actually people in the lecture room who applauded after his final seconds…..

However, it is worth noting that Genesis was a completely fabricated account of the “beginning” as Moses was not there to witness anything more than what his own mind could conjure up and where did he ever get the time to chisel the stories—–it took him 40 days and 40 nights, metaphorically speaking to even chisel ten or 15 commandments or as I fondly call, The Ten Observations about society’s ills in those days. As a matter of fact the whole village started a new religion around the image of the golden calf by the time Moses came down from his retreat in the mountain.

So it is not unreasonable that other early book accounts from the hand me down stories are just as fabricated, embellished and inaccurate as most stories handed down over the passage of many years. You know the whole school day yarns that started with a simple story from one person to another and then each in turn related the story to another and by the time the story ended with the tenth or 15th person it was so far from reality of the first story that was read back at the end of the game as to end in yelping laughter at the exercise.

Exodus 32

“Make Gods for Us”
32 When the people realized that Moses was taking forever in coming down off the mountain, they rallied around Aaron and said, “Do something. Make gods for us who will lead us. That Moses, the man who got us out of Egypt—who knows what’s happened to him?”

2-4 So Aaron told them, “Take off the gold rings from the ears of your wives and sons and daughters and bring them to me.” They all did it; they removed the gold rings from their ears and brought them to Aaron. He took the gold from their hands and cast it in the form of a calf, shaping it with an engraving tool.

The people responded with enthusiasm: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from Egypt!”

5 Aaron, taking in the situation, built an altar before the calf.

Aaron then announced, “Tomorrow is a feast day to God!”

6 Early the next morning, the people got up and offered Whole-Burnt-Offerings and brought Peace-Offerings. The people sat down to eat and drink and then began to party. It turned into a wild party!

7-8 God spoke to Moses, “Go! Get down there! Your people whom you brought up from the land of Egypt have fallen to pieces. In no time at all they’ve turned away from the way I commanded them: They made a molten calf and worshiped it. They’ve sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are the gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt!’”

9-10 God said to Moses, “I look at this people—oh! what a stubborn, hard-headed people! Let me alone now, give my anger free reign to burst into flames and incinerate them. But I’ll make a great nation out of you.”

11-13 Moses tried to calm his God down. He said, “Why, God, would you lose your temper with your people? Why, you brought them out of Egypt in a tremendous demonstration of power and strength. Why let the Egyptians say, ‘He had it in for them—he brought them out so he could kill them in the mountains, wipe them right off the face of the Earth.’ Stop your anger. Think twice about bringing evil against your people! Think of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants to whom you gave your word, telling them ‘I will give you many children, as many as the stars in the sky, and I’ll give this land to your children as their land forever.’”

14 And God did think twice. He decided not to do the evil he had threatened against his people.

15-16 Moses turned around and came down from the mountain, carrying the two tablets of The Testimony. The tablets were written on both sides, front and back. God made the tablets and God wrote the tablets—engraved them.

17 When Joshua heard the sound of the people shouting noisily, he said to Moses, “That’s the sound of war in the camp!”

18 But Moses said,

Those aren’t songs of victory,
And those aren’t songs of defeat,
I hear songs of people throwing a party.
19-20 And that’s what it was. When Moses came near to the camp and saw the calf and the people dancing, his anger flared. He threw down the tablets and smashed them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. He took the calf that they had made, melted it down with fire, pulverized it to powder, then scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

21 Moses said to Aaron, “What on Earth did these people ever do to you that you involved them in this huge sin?”

22-23 Aaron said, “Master, don’t be angry. You know this people and how set on evil they are. They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will lead us. This Moses, the man who brought us out of Egypt, we don’t know what’s happened to him.’

24 “So I said, ‘Who has gold?’ And they took off their jewelry and gave it to me. I threw it in the fire and out came this calf.”

25-26 Moses saw that the people were simply running wild—Aaron had let them run wild, disgracing themselves before their enemies. He took up a position at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is on God’s side, join me!” All the Levites stepped up.

27 He then told them, “God’s orders, the God of Israel: ‘Strap on your swords and go to work. Crisscross the camp from one end to the other: Kill brother, friend, neighbor.’”

28 The Levites carried out Moses’ orders. Three thousand of the people were killed that day.

30 The next day Moses addressed the people: “You have sinned an enormous sin! But I am going to go up to God; maybe I’ll be able to clear you of your sin.”

31-32 Moses went back to God and said, “This is terrible. This people has sinned—it’s an enormous sin! They made gods of gold for themselves. And now, if you will only forgive their sin. . . . But if not, erase me out of the book you’ve written.”

33-34 God said to Moses, “I’ll only erase from my book those who sin against me. For right now, you go and lead the people to where I told you. Look, my Angel is going ahead of you. On the day, though, when I settle accounts, their sins will certainly be part of the settlement.”

35 God sent a plague on the people because of the calf they and Aaron had made. :)——-;)…….:)

To my embarrassment, I admit I was abrasive and harsh with you a couple times. It is wrong for me to have reacted out of my frustration that way towards you and I am apologizing to you for it. It’s certainly unbecoming of a Christ like spirit. So, it’s to my shame to have been so harsh. Again, I’m sorry.

Provided you’ve forgiven me, I believe you understand the passion I have within me for the word of God. That will not cease and I could be prone to say something in a way that I don’t mean to be abrasive or harsh, but comes off that way. If you see this happening, please tell me so I cam correct it. I’m an aggressive person by nature, thus I’m aggressive in whatever my pursuits are in life.

I have enjoyed our conversation and hope you have as well. If I knew how to insert an imogi, I would insert a smiley face.

At the risk of sounding harsh or abrasive (I really and truly don’t mean to be), I would like to “Recap” the conversation, scriptures, scriptural understanding, and interpretation we’ve argued. It’s not all inclusive because this has been a long conversation and I have not gone back to comb through all of our posts, and I can’t say I remember all of what we argued. I can say, according to the best of my memory the following is accurate. If you see an inaccuracy or omission, please point it out to me and I’ll address it.

1) You said Paul never preached baptism. My response: Acts 19, which is obvious, that is the gospel message he preached to these disciples – Verdict: You were in error.
2) You quoted 1 Cor 1:17 and claimed this proved Paul didn’t believe baptism was important. My response: Paul, in several of other Epistles, showed what he believed and preached about baptism: he explained very thoroughly that we are united with Christ, the son of man, in all the works of the gospel when we are baptized with water in His name (Rom 6, Col 2, Gal. 3) , but in the context of the scripture, Paul meant it didn’t matter who baptized you, and all were baptized by the way, what matter’s is who’s name were you baptized in when you believed the gospel message he preached. Verdict: You were in error again.
3) You sighted Acts 10: 43 as proof that sins were forgiven in repentance only, but you cut out the first half of the scripture in an effort to prove your doctrine. Wow! My response: Look at the preaching of Peter and what he said to the gentiles. He preached baptism in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins of those that believe (vs.43, 48); “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Those were Peter’s words and it’s clear Peter preached forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus through the waters of baptism. I also noted that vs.44-47 showed Peter they gentiles were granted repentance, therefore, they believed and were baptized with water into Christ. Verdict: You were not only in error again, but you hid part of the scripture in an effort to prove your point. (Not cool. You took away from the scripture, which, to God, is a big, big: no, no – See Dt: 4:2, 12:32).
4) You claimed it is your belief Mark 16:16 is an interpolation. My response: I never brought this scripture up, but anyone that can’t defend there position with anything other than to deny the scripture, is scripture, proves their argument is weak at best, false at worst. Verdict: By default, you are in error again.
5) Acts 2:14-40, you said you don’t interpret it according to what it says, particularly vs. 38. My response: The scriptures are very clear as to what the gospel message is, and what we are to believe and obey. Verdict: By default, you are in error again. Also see all of the above errors in defense of this position.
6) You said there is no scriptural support that baptism washes away sins that were already forgiven in repentance, and therefore, you asked me to give you one scripture. My response: The blood of Christ is applied to us when we believe, repent and get baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Verdict: You were in error again.
7) You said Paul preached the death, burial, and resurrection as the only importance to our salvation (1 Cor 15:1-8). My response: I pointed out Paul preached the death, burial, and resurrection as the FIRST importance, otherwise, without the gospel, obedience of faith in repentance, baptism in to Christ through the water, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit would not save you because if there is no sacrifice of blood and no resurrection, we are still dead in our sins. Verdict: Again, you misinterpreted the scripture and are in error. Paul preached to believe the gospel of Christ with repentance, baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit, in which, if we believe that which is of first importance (His death, burial, resurrection). Then we need to receive that which is of MOST importance upon believing; to be born again of the water and the Spirit.
8) I understand your take on John 3 and in my opinion, it is why you cannot see that baptism is a work of God in making us a creature in His image and likeness again. The reason I say this is, if Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus about natural childbirth, then your doctrine is valid and I would not argue against it. Unfortunately, Jesus never addressed natural childbirth in His conversation with Nicodemus. More on this later.

In summary, I, like you, do not want to win an argument for the sake of winning. I want to see the proof in the pudding and according to the scriptural support and arguments put forth, it would be hard to argue that you made your case and it should be clear that I did make mine.

I think I have countered your arguments and made my case using scriptures. I did not intentionally leave out scriptures to trick you or to make my point, I don’t recall the specific passage but sometimes for sake of space I shorten the verses I put in the post. Many of the things you said in your summary about my comments were misconstrued or misunderstood but I don’t want to rehash it all again.

I did notice one thing throughout this conversation and that is you did not always counter argue the scriptures I presented in my defense. Specifically the ones about the “washing away of forgiven sins” concept.

I think this whole argument hinges on this statement. Does God wash away forgiven sins through water baptism. I know you presented Acts 22:16 and if I were to only read that scripture on the matter then I might agree with you. However, taking the totality of scripture into account you did not comment on the following 2 verses I presented.

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

And one more to add…speaking of the “washing” of the Holy Spirit.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

Lastly, I don’t think you adequately explained how a forgiven person filled with the Holy Ghost (referring to Cornelius) is NOT saved. I know you are doing your best to reconcile all the scriptures and include water baptism, but you did not explain how a “sealed” person is not saved when a sealed person by definition is indeed saved since that’s what the seal is for !

So from my perspective while you did a good job in presenting your case, you did not take the time to rebut some of my arguments that I made from scripture. There is more I can say but i will stop there. I think you for the conversation as it has helped me to review a lot of scriptures and think things through again.

As for the winner, we should have an arbitrator decide that 🙂 Maybe Leo could do that….which is good news for you because I called him an imbecile the other day…sorry Leo.

A smiley is made simply by typing a full colon : followed by a right bracket )

The two together without a space form 🙂 Now a variation of the smiley is the smiley, winking smiley face. This is the full colon followed by a semi colon again no space 😉 a forlorn un-smiley colon : with left bracket ( 😦 colon with small x I love you smiley face 😡 colon : with two left brackets (( :(( and so on

NAZ, you auld dawg, what would an imbecile do without the old dawg to hound him? AKA, the reverse spelling of, wait for it, wait for it….Taog…. tee hee.
But I always liked the reverse spelling of Dogma much better; it’s more, rather Christlike don’t you think?

Messiah Himself validates the authenticity and veracity of Moses’ writings throughout the Gospels [Luke 2:22, 5:14, 9:30, 16:29-31, 20:37, 24:27, 44-47; John 1:17. 5:45-46, 7:19, 7:23; Matthew 8:4, 17:3, 19:8, 23:1-3; Mark 1:44, 7:10, 9:4, 10:3, 12:26]. Messiah also authenticates Isaiah, Daniel, John the Baptist and all the other prophets of Scripture. It’s integral to the design of the Bible [OT & NT] as a message system from outside our space-time domain. It’s simple, if you believe in Yahshua Messiah then you know who wrote the Books of Moses. If you don’t believe in Yahshua Messiah then you’ve got bigger problems than who wrote the Books of Moses [John 3:36].

As to Exodus 32 you’ve got to keep reading to Exodus 34. Someone once posted on Jason’s blog, “God deals with man by way of covenants.” This proves essential. That’s why you’ve got to read on to Exodus 34 if you want to understand. Pay particular attention to Exodus 34:5-12.

It’s unfortunate you had trouble with Manfred Bietak. Let me offer another suggestion. I’m sure you’ll have no difficulties with the accent:

Your answer: Yes or No? And why?
Q2B) did 3,000 people that heard the gospel message believe and obey Peter’s command to repent and be baptized that day?
Your answer: yes or no? And why?
My answers to your question:
Quote:
I think this whole argument hinges on this statement. Does God wash away forgiven sins through water baptism. I know you presented Acts 22:16 and if I were to only read that scripture on the matter then I might agree with you. However, taking the totality of scripture into account you did not comment on the following 2 verses I presented. Unquote
My Response #1: Your defense is inadequate and not acceptable. If you use the totality of scripture, I am the only one that has given multiple scriptures in support of this. You can’t waive your hand a make this scripture go away.
Additionally, and ironically, the scripture you provided below supports this scripture: 1Co 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – Read the scripture. “you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (this is baptism in His name) and by the Spirit of our God (this is baptism of the Holy Spirit (these two baptism are the one re-birth experience) – (John 3:3,5-8).
Quote:
Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Unquote.
My response #2: Both of these scriptures argue for the washing in the blood water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not against it. These two scriptures are consistent with what I have been telling you; we are washed in His blood by the working of God, through the waters of baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-14). It’s not the water in baptism that washes us, it is the union with the son of man (Rom 6:1-10) through His name that cleanses you by making you a new creature in the original sinless image of God (that which is flesh is always flesh) and it is the Holy Spirit of Christ in us (that which is Spirit is Spirit) that raises us from the dead (John 3:3, 5-6).
Quote:
And one more to add…speaking of the “washing” of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Unquote
My response #3: see above response #1

Quote:
Lastly, I don’t think you adequately explained how a forgiven person filled with the Holy Ghost (referring to Cornelius) is NOT saved. I know you are doing your best to reconcile all the scriptures and include water baptism, but you did not explain how a “sealed” person is not saved when a sealed person by definition is indeed saved since that’s what the seal is for ! Unquote.
My response #4: This question exemplifies your tendency to have preconceived notions about things I never said or implied. I would need more clarity from you to properly address this question. It seems to me this question is more about the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, but it could be a question towards Acts 10:44-46. Please clarify so I can address your question accurately.
Meanwhile, please answer my questions and comment on the answers I gave to your questions.

I know you didn’t intentionally leave out scripture to be deceptive. I also get that it is prudent to shorten verses at times, but you must be careful when you do it so you don’t do it in a way that changes the context of the scripture. This is what happened when you did it with Acts 10:43.

I take exception to a couple of your statements:

Quote:
Many of the things you said in your summary about my comments were misconstrued or misunderstood but I don’t want to rehash it all again. Unquote
My Response: That’s not fair to say unless you identify which comments were inaccurate. I have to hold your feet to the fire on this one. I believe everyone one of my comments are accurate and I asked you to offer up any corrections to them if you weren’t in agreement so we could settle it.
The other one is:
Quote:
I did notice one thing throughout this conversation and that is you did not always counter argue the scriptures I presented in my defense. Specifically the ones about the “washing away of forgiven sins” concept. Unquote.
My Response: This comment is much more true about you than it is about me in regards to countering my scriptures and explanations. For the most part, I have countered your scriptures, but due to the length and depth of this conversation, I didn’t address all of them because I didn’t think it was necessary since I found them to be redundant. I especially would point back to the two questions about Acts 2:14-40; you flat out didn’t answer the questions as put forth.
Per your request, I am going to address your questions about your two verses and I am going to address your comment about Acts 22:16.
However, I also have a request. I have two requests, first counter my answers to your questions and I want you to answer the two questions I asked about Acts 2:14-40. Specifically,
Q1) did Peter say to the people he preached the gospel message to on the Day of Pentecost; Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
Your answer: Yes or No? And why?
Q2A) do we need to believe or reject his message to do both, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins?
Your answer: Yes or No? And why?
Q2B) did 3,000 people that heard the gospel message believe and obey Peter’s command to repent and be baptized that day?
Your answer: yes or no? And why?
My answers to your question:
Quote:
I think this whole argument hinges on this statement. Does God wash away forgiven sins through water baptism. I know you presented Acts 22:16 and if I were to only read that scripture on the matter then I might agree with you. However, taking the totality of scripture into account you did not comment on the following 2 verses I presented. Unquote
My Response #1: Your defense is inadequate and not acceptable. If you use the totality of scripture, I am the only one that has given multiple scriptures in support of this. You can’t waive your hand a make this scripture go away.
Additionally, and ironically, the scripture you provided below supports this scripture: 1Co 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – Read the scripture. “you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (this is baptism in His name) and by the Spirit of our God (this is baptism of the Holy Spirit (these two baptism are the one re-birth experience) – (John 3:3,5-8).
Quote:
Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Unquote.
My response #2: Both of these scriptures argue for the washing in the blood water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not against it. These two scriptures are consistent with what I have been telling you; we are washed in His blood by the working of God, through the waters of baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-14). It’s not the water in baptism that washes us, it is the union with the son of man (Rom 6:1-10) through His name that cleanses you by making you a new creature in the original sinless image of God (that which is flesh is always flesh) and it is the Holy Spirit of Christ in us (that which is Spirit is Spirit) that raises us from the dead (John 3:3, 5-6).
Quote:
And one more to add…speaking of the “washing” of the Holy Spirit.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Unquote
My response #3: see above response #1

Quote:
Lastly, I don’t think you adequately explained how a forgiven person filled with the Holy Ghost (referring to Cornelius) is NOT saved. I know you are doing your best to reconcile all the scriptures and include water baptism, but you did not explain how a “sealed” person is not saved when a sealed person by definition is indeed saved since that’s what the seal is for ! Unquote.
My response #4: This question exemplifies your tendency to have preconceived notions about things I never said or implied. I would need more clarity from you to properly address this question. It seems to me this question is more about the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, but it could be a question towards Acts 10:44-46. Please clarify so I can address your question accurately.

Meanwhile, please answer my questions and comment on the answers I gave to your questions.

Naz,
It was late last nigh when I answered your post. So, I re-read you last question this morning and originally didn’t noticed you were referring to Cornelius. So her’e your question again:

Quote:Lastly, I don’t think you adequately explained how a forgiven person filled with the Holy Ghost (referring to Cornelius) is NOT saved. I know you are doing your best to reconcile all the scriptures and include water baptism, but you did not explain how a “sealed” person is not saved when a sealed person by definition is indeed saved since that’s what the seal is for ! Unquote.

My response #4: This is an important question especially since I never said this.I said salvation begins at repentance, but doesn’t end there. So, how would it be that I would believe they were not saved when they were filled with the Holy Spirit?
I need to put a magnifying glass on the real issue here with this question. You are the only one to say this, NOT ME. It exemplifies how often, throughout this argument, you have taken something I have said and applied it out of context, then argued against it, as if I said or implied it. Check the record, you did this a lot and it is what lead me to become frustrated to the point of bad behavior.
For example, you did the same thing with baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, claiming I said or implied “sins were not forgiven in repentance”. I never said that or implied it either, yet you spent a lot of time arguing against something I never said. I spent a lot of time trying to get you to understand I never said it. So, here we are again, you’re asking me to answer a question about something I never said, nor implied. How am I supposed to argue against something you said?

The only thing I can do is to remind you what my position has always been and, I believe if you check the record, I have always been clear about it. I said, salvation begins with repentance. Do you remember that argument? You argued against it, claiming the disciples in John 19 didn’t meet the concept of the New Testament repentance? That is another one to add to the list. To be clear, I said salvation begins at repentance. So, how would it be that I would believe they were not saved when they were filled with the Holy Spirit? Your question, like several others applies only to what you have said and misconstrued.

So permit me to defend what I said and not what you said. I said, “Salvation begins with repentance,” it doesn’t begin and end there. Salvation only begins in repentance. As it pertains to Cornelius, the scripture supports this doctrine to be absolutely correct (see Acts 11:18 . . “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”). Cornelius was salvation began before Peter was summoned because he was granted repentance that leads to life. So what was he lead to believe that saved him? He believed the gospel message and was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47) and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 10:43,48).

For some reason, you are trying to eliminate baptism into Christ from the record of what believers did when they heard the gospel message and believed. You’re not denying that all of them were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but you are denying why they did it when they believed; in repentance they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins with the understanding and belief there would no longer be a record of sin on their souls.

In summary, salvation begins with repentance, continues when we believe the gospel message; Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection of first importance, obedience of faith in the gospel message to believe your sins are forgiven and removed from the record of your soul through repentance and baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ, and believing you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit because you believe. Salvation is culminated in the resurrection of the believers souls (which is both spirit and flesh, born again in the image and according to the likeness of the one true God; Jesus Christ – 1 John 5:20).

Q1) did Peter say to the people he preached the gospel message to on the Day of Pentecost; Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
Your answer: Yes or No? And why?
Naz: YES Peter said this after he explained to them the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

Q2A) do we need to believe or reject his message to do both, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins?
Your answer: Yes or No? And why?
Naz: We should do both but based on other scriptures water baptism does not effect the forgiveness of sins, the blood of Christ does when one puts faith in Jesus for salvation. Furthermore, I already explained the how the word “for” is not the best translation and usage in this verse in the Greek. The inspired word of God (NT) was given to us in Greek, not English. Regardless, we can’t take one scripture and build a theology on it. Being obedient to water baptism does not save me. I do it because I want to identify with Christ and this is the external means with which the Lord said it should be done. I am obedient to a lot of things the Lord says, my obedience by doing good works does not save me. I still disagree with you, water baptism is an external work that we do and not God.

Q2B) did 3,000 people that heard the gospel message believe and obey Peter’s command to repent and be baptized that day?
Your answer: yes or no? And why?
Naz: The 3000 people believed his message about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and because of that they repented and were baptized.

I know you like the book of Acts so to follow up on Acts 2, what about Acts chapter 3 after the man at the gate was healed.

Act 3:12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk?
Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.
Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
Act 3:17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Act 3:18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,
Act 3:20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, ….

Peter does not make a mention of water baptism here. Why ?

Moving on….
You said ”
1Co 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – Read the scripture. “you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (this is baptism in His name) and by the Spirit of our God (this is baptism of the Holy Spirit (these two baptism are the one re-birth experience) – (John 3:3,5-8). ”

Just because it says “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” it does not automatically refer to water baptism. The 2 verses below illustrate my point.

1Co_5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, ….
Col_3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Next, you said ”
These two scriptures are consistent with what I have been telling you; we are washed in His blood by the working of God, through the waters of baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-14). It’s not the water in baptism that washes us, it is the union with the son of man (Rom 6:1-10) through His name that cleanses you ….. ”

I actually agree with you here I think, yes it’s through His blood and by the union with Christ. That union takes place in the spirit, we become one with Christ when we believe and are saved. Water baptism does not effect spiritual regeneration, it is only a picture of the cleansing and spiritual regeneration that takes place when a person turns and puts his faith in Christ. If the water does not “wash” us then it is not needed and only serves as picture of the spiritual reality which we cannot see.

This is the part that is most confusing to me in your theology. You say that baptism washes away forgiven sins and that baptism is part of the gospel and must be obeyed for a person to be saved, then you say the water does “not” wash away sins. The second clause negates the first clause. If the union occurs in the spirit then why do we need water baptism to accomplish the spiritual union? This is very confusing theology.

On to Cornelius….

This is not about “once saved always saved” although I believe in that but don’t want to get into that now.

The scripture says when we receive the Holy Spirit that is our seal of salvation until our physical bodies are redeemed in the resurrection. My question was how could Cornelius require further cleansing when he was already sealed and ready for heaven ? If Cornelius was killed on the way to his baptism would he be saved in your opinion ?

One last question for you. If a person sins after they are saved how do they receive forgiveness ? Do they need to ask God for forgiveness ? If yes, does that mean they have to be re-baptized to wash away those newly forgiven sins ? Just curious what you think.

I hope I answered all your questions and responded to them as well. If not I apologize, I have to go now….

Frank:
I have no problem in believing in the son, its the supernatural entity of the father that you believe in that I have a problem with which is the same problem Jesus had with the supernatural entity of the Pharisees and why Jesus constantly said the Father in me does the work, says the words, does the deeds. Without my Father I can do nothing. The real Jesus, the one you don’t know is on my profile.

Covenants are man made contracts. And man made the supernatural God you believe in too and therefore the covenants man made , man claimed they were covenants from God but so did they claim that your nightly dreams were visions from God. Please don’t think that God’s covenant is the rainbow in the sky or the fire embers the priests stoked 24/7 so they would not go out by day or by night. those are man made covenants by wannabee Messengers from the divine supernatural man created, Jesus never claimed any such things and the only God Jesus the son claimed to ID with was the Father operative within the human being. aarrrgggh.

Moses had several things that propelled him…

The Elders from the Burning Bush days of trickery;

Magic tricks from the same elders;

Delusional drugs;

And fermented booze;

stone tablets,

a chisel

and a hammer or rock;

and an agenda to perpetuate;

the supernatural God of the Elders

The wonders God talked about by the elders was war against the inhabitants of the lands

Moses was prepared to war against the people in order to claim the lands.

I also note that the sons and grandsons were to be held responsible for the sins of the fathers up to the third and fourth generation 34:7 Still, he doesn’t ignore sin. He holds sons and grandsons responsible for a father’s sins to the third and even fourth generation.”
COMPLETELY CONTRARY to Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Do you need to ask, ‘So why does the child not share the guilt of the parent?’

“Isn’t it plain? It’s because the child did what is fair and right. Since the child was careful to do what is lawful and right, the child will live truly and well. The soul that sins is the soul that dies. The child does not share the guilt of the parent, nor the parent the guilt of the child. If you live upright and well, you get the credit; if you live a wicked life, you’re guilty as charged.”

You pick the one you glean, to be correct…I interpret perfectly and separate the diamonds from the dung.

1. Kevin, Q1) did Peter say to the people he preached the gospel message to on the Day of Pentecost; Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Your answer: Yes or No? And why? Naz: YES Peter said this after he explained to them the death burial and resurrection of Christ. Q2A) do we need to believe or reject his message to do both, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins? Your answer: Yes or No? And why? Naz: We should do both but based on other scriptures water baptism does not effect the forgiveness of sins, the blood of Christ does when one puts faith in Jesus for salvation.

Kevin says: Your answer goes directly against what Peter preached and you have provided nothing other than your belief to support your doctrine. All of your scriptural references were in support of forgiveness of sins in repentance only, without proving baptism in the name of Jesus Christ does not forgive sins. This gospel message spoken by the Holy Spirit says both “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ”. Sorry, Naz, repeatedly claiming something doesn’t make it true and it definitely is not proof that it is true. It is only proof you believe it to be true.

2. Furthermore, I already explained the how the word “for” is not the best translation and usage in this verse in the Greek. The inspired word of God (NT) was given to us in Greek, not English. Regardless, we can’t take one scripture and build a theology on it.

Kevin says: Again, you make a claim that is not true. I haven’t take one scripture and built a theology on it, but you have. You’ve built a theology against Acts 2:38, claiming it defeats this one scripture and therefore all other scriptures in support of Acts 2:38 are arbitrarily dismissed. Can you see how ridiculous your argument is? It’s a straw man’s argument.The word “for” doesn’t impact this scripture.

3. Being obedient to water baptism does not save me. I do it because I want to identify with Christ and this is the external means with which the Lord said it should be done. I am obedient to a lot of things the Lord says, my obedience by doing good works does not save me. I still disagree with you, water baptism is an external work that we do and not God.

Kevin says: Again, you make a claim only to what you believe, but have not proven. Your obedience to other things such as the Lord’s supper, etc. are not preached in the gospel message, making, once more, another one of your arguments fallacious. Your attempts to turn baptism into a work by believing it is following some kind of rule or law or procedure to that was preached in the gospel to save us is fallacious. Believing the gospel message is what saves us and this is what all the believers did when they repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. There is no argument that you have made to prove otherwise.

4. Q2B) did 3,000 people that heard the gospel message believe and obey Peter’s command to repent and be baptized that day? Your answer: yes or no? And why? Naz: The 3000 people believed his message about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and because of that they repented and were baptized.

Kevin says: Your answer really shows how hard it is to deny the truth. You couldn’t deny it outright, but you clearly omitted they not only believed the death, burial, and resurrection, but they also believed they needed to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ fore the forgiveness of their sins. Your answer is downright dodgy and omits the facts as to all of what they must have believed; specifically, theyu also believed in repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. Naz, you can run from this scripture, but you can’t hide. ☺

5. I know you like the book of Acts so to follow up on Acts 2, what about Acts chapter 3 after the man at the gate was healed. Act 3:12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. Act 3:16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. Act 3:17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. Act 3:18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, Act 3:20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, …. Peter does not make a mention of water baptism here. Why ?

Kevin says: Peter was preaching to Jews that believed Jesus was not the Messiah. They needed to change their minds and believe He is the Messiah. Peter proceeded to explain from Scripture that the Jews needed to accept their Messiah. “True repentance is admitting that what God says is true, and because it is true, to change our mind. He again called on his hearers to repent, in view of what he had pointed out in (Acts 2:38). He also invited them to “return” to a proper relationship to God, which was possible only by accepting Jesus. The result would be forgiveness of their sins.
People can repent concerning many things, not just sin. They can change their minds about God (Acts 20:21), Christ (Acts 2:37-38), and works (Heb. 6:1; Rev. 9:20; 16:11), as well as sin (Acts 8:22; Rev. 9:21). This shows that in biblical usage, repentance means essentially a change of mind. Repentance, believing, and obeying the gospel message are in lockstep to salvation.

6. Moving on…. You said ” 1Co 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – Read the scripture. “you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (this is baptism in His name) and by the Spirit of our God (this is baptism of the Holy Spirit (these two baptism are the one re-birth experience) – (John 3:3,5-8). ” Just because it says “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” it does not automatically refer to water baptism. The 2 verses below illustrate my point. 1Co_5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, …. Col_3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Next, you said ” These two scriptures are consistent with what I have been telling you; we are washed in His blood by the working of God, through the waters of baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-14). It’s not the water in baptism that washes us, it is the union with the son of man (Rom 6:1-10) through His name that cleanses you ….. ” I actually agree with you here I think, yes it’s through His blood and by the union with Christ. That union takes place in the spirit, we become one with Christ when we believe and are saved. Water baptism does not effect spiritual regeneration, it is only a picture of the cleansing and spiritual regeneration that takes place when a person turns and puts his faith in Christ. If the water does not “wash” us then it is not needed and only serves as picture of the spiritual reality which we cannot see. This is the part that is most confusing to me in your theology. You say that baptism washes away forgiven sins and that baptism is part of the gospel and must be obeyed for a person to be saved, then you say the water does “not” wash away sins. The second clause negates the first clause. If the union occurs in the spirit then why do we need water baptism to accomplish the spiritual union? This is very confusing theology.

Kevin says: These comments make me grow weary with your consistent attempts to claim something I have not said by adulterating my comments. Specifically, I never said or implied that baptism is to be singled out as you have proposed here. I said we must believe the gospel message ALSO and synergistically preaches repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. To believe otherwise, is to not believe the message of the gospel. Please stop trying to frame the issue in a way that turns it into a fallacious argument. Secondly, once again you claim the union with Christ preached in Rom 6 is not through the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Really? You know that this is not true. You know Paul is speaking about water baptism in Rom 6. In another attempt to adulterate what I said, you ignore what I said, “in union with the son of man (flesh, not spirit)”, therefore you are not in agreement with me and you fallaciously changed my doctrine. I’m not trying to disparage you in anyway whatsoever, but you might consider how you have, from early on, adulterated my comments in an effort to support yours. By doing this, you’ve mostly argued again fallacious arguments that you proposed yourself. However, I do agree we are untied with Christ with the baptism of His Spirit (not flesh, but Spirit) into us. We are baptized in the “son of man” through the water in the name of Jesus Christ (that which is flesh is flesh), and the Spirit of Christ is baptized into us (that which is spirit). We are in Christ through the deeds of the son of man, and we will be resurrected on the day of the Lord by the power of the spirit of His life that is in us. This explanation is clear enough for you to understand your claim that water baptism has it’s part in washing us, therefore the balance of what you claim is invalid and fallacious. Finally, and once again, how are you confused? I never said water washes sins away. It’s through the plan of God that He chose water to unite us with Christ, in the name of Jesus Christ (Rom 6, Gal 3:27, Col 2:9-14. It is through this union, we are covered by His blood, the blood of the “son of man”.

On to Cornelius…. This is not about “once saved always saved” although I believe in that but don’t want to get into that now. The scripture says when we receive the Holy Spirit that is our seal of salvation until our physical bodies are redeemed in the resurrection. My question was how could Cornelius require further cleansing when he was already sealed and ready for heaven ? If Cornelius was killed on the way to his baptism would he be saved in your opinion ? One last question for you. If a person sins after they are saved how do they receive forgiveness ? Do they need to ask God for forgiveness ? If yes, does that mean they have to be re-baptized to wash away those newly forgiven sins ? Just curious what you think. I hope I answered all your questions and responded to them as well. If not I apologize, I have to go now…. Naz

Kevin says: This last part should have already been clear to you, but let me try to address the questions as they are put forth.

1) how could Cornelius require further cleansing when he was already sealed and ready for heaven?

Kevin says: Answer: He didn’t need further cleansing because he believed and was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The point here is, if he didn’t obey the command of Peter to be baptized in the name of the Lord fort the remission of sins, then Cornelius would no longer be a believer and thus, would need to repent again and believe what God’s word said. (also, as a side note that people generally get baptized as a confession of their faith in Christ certainly would not have been the reason these gentiles were baptized because they already confessed their faith in Christ through the voice of the Holy Spirit that fell upon them).

2) If Cornelius was killed on the way to his baptism would he be saved in your opinion?

Kevin says: Answer: It is disturbing that you would resortrto this type of question and do it with clear omissions of the gospel message preached to Cornelius. Questions like this remind me of Satan’s request for Jesus to throw Himself down to prove he was the Son of God. The question just seems unclean and in my opinion is unclean, but I’ll answer it. Cornelius was granted repentance that leads to life before he heard the gospel. It seems very unlikely God would grant repentance that leads to life and then take that life away before he had a chance to hear and believe the preaching of the gospel message; which includes what you excluded in your question, that is baptism of the repented believer in the name of Jesus CHrist fore the forgiveness of sins. So, your question really is, if Cornelius died after he repented, but before he heard the gospel message would he be saved? What’s your answer Naz? Do you think God would grant repentance that leads to life to someone before they could hear the gospel message (as is the case with Cornelius), and then take that persons life away before they could be saved? That’s my answer Naz. At this point, it is to your shame that you again, intentionally or not, cut baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ out of the well-established gospel message that was preached everywhere in the scriptures, including the gospel message preached to Cornelius and the gentiles. I’m sorry for rebuking you. I am not trying to berate you by any means, but this question and its presentation is deceptive, whether intentional or not, and for that reason, questions like this do not come from a good place. I hope you can take step back, look at it, see it, and not get upset with me for pointing it out.

3) One last question for you. If a person sins after they are saved how do they receive forgiveness ? Do they need to ask God for forgiveness ? If yes, does that mean they have to be re-baptized to wash away those newly forgiven sins ? Just curious what you think.

Kevin says: Answer: We are covered with the blood of Christ, so our sins, past, present, and future are already forgiven when we believe and obey the gospel (in which, I clearly have pointed out my position). This does not mean we have a license to sin, nor does it mean we couldn’t repent away from God in unbelief, because we still have a free will. It’s ok to ask for forgiveness, but God knows we are going to sin, so once we believe and are covered by His blood, our sins are forgiven. If we fall into habitual sin, then we may need to confess our sins and repent away from them, for He is faithful to forgive us. No, we don’t need to be baptized more than once, provided we believed and repented prior to being baptize in the name of the Lord in the first place. Baptism does not wash away sins of a non-believer or un-repented person.

I hope I answered all of your questions and since I have taken issue with your questions and your previous answers, I would like to hear your response, to my response and comments to these questions and issues.

Leo, Well, it looks like you missed a piece of that dung when you dredged up that Penn & Teller: Bullshit! as biblical scholars. Yahshua’s problem with the Pharisees was their clinging to their man-made traditions and placing those over to nullify God’s Law; i.e., the Law of Moses. I have no idea what “scripture” you refer to as interpreting but so long as you see yourself as clever in your own sight & wise in your own eyes you’re just blind being led by the blind.

Frank, Frank, Frank:
Luke 2:22…………….what has this to do with Jesus validation at 8 days old..this is the purification of his mother after giving birth as they ready Jesus for genital mutilation also a Law of Moses? WTF

Luke 5:14…..not a validation..it’s a ritual required of the people by the priests

Luke 9:30… the disciples supposed them to be Moses and Elijah. Jesus never said so, the writers of Luke 9:30…Matt & Mk said so but not Jesus and in fact I submit that these two men were his secret disciples Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus for how would Peter, James and John and Peter not knowing what to say blatted out the names but how would he or any of them recognize Moses and Elijah of hundreds and thousands of years before, It’s a ridiculous notion.

Luke 16:29-31….a story, a parable to make the point they would not believe anything even though the dead arose.

Luke 20-37…again a parable but it was an Elder posing as God who said the passage not Moses. Moses at the burning bush

Luke 24:27…he began expounding the Old Testament Scripture which inevitably began with Moses so he could not start anywhere else. This following the crucifixion and healing time after the escape out of the tomb

Luke 24:44-47….Jesus fulfilled the scriptural prophecies because he took it upon himself to fulfill them which anybody had the opportunity to do but they were then, like they are today, waiting for somebody else to do it. Waiting for the Second Coming; but if you are not it you missed it already and will long to see the days of the son of man but will not because it ain’t going to happen without somebody taking the mantle.(an important role or responsibility that passes from one person to another.)

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, everybody knew that but he did not express that sentiment, the writer of John did.

John 5:45-46 this is the same passage that Mohammed said was referring to him also and the passage that anybody could say it was for them so Ithink this is not a good enough scripture to use to validate Moses as much as to validate oneself.

John 7:19 Moses gave the law…everybody knows that, even Geico knows that. To know a scripture is not to validate it. You can claim to have read mein Kampff but does that mean you validate Hitler.

John 7:23…Again only alluding to the law of Moses.. no validation except to admonish the scribes and Pharisees trying to kill him.

Matthew 8:4..same passage as Luke 5:14 redundant

Matt 17:3…repeat of Luke 9:30 above redundant

Matt 19:8…Moses permitted divorce where’s the validation?

Matt 23:1-3…validating the Laws and Moses seat as the Law maker

Mark 1:44…same as Luke 5:14 and Matt 8:4 above.. Double redundancy!

Mk 7:10….talking about one of the commandments that Moses wrote as John 7:23 above redundant

Mk 9:4…as Luke 9:30, redundant….

MK 10:3 noting a mosaic law…

Mk 12:26……a repeat of Luke 20:37…redundancy

So you see Frank you simply listed scriptural references from some other source and regurgitated the same false information you are trying to pass of as credible. It is not credible and I am sure if you had looked up the scriptures you listed you would have known for yourself that they were deficient in trying to link Jesus validating Moses beginning when Jesus was a mere 8 days old! and if you don’t think that is enough to stop regurgitating erroneous nonsense you need to look inside your own heart because I believe you are as sincere a seeker as Nicodemus was when Jesus talked plainly to him as I am now speaking to you. And I also know from your postings, you’re an honorable man with a sincere love for God and are not intentionally prepared to swallow all the repetitious religious rantings we have been given for the last 2000 years.

It’s time you get to know Jesus and forget the approval of others, don’t you think you’ve been led astray long enough and don’t you think it’s time you opened you own mind and brain? And sometimes I think you try to do that but you need to do it more to avoid a stray from the way

Be still God said; I want you to know something. I’m God.
And if you’re prepared to pause long enough and know that I AM God .
And to recognize where I live, in you. Anything else you need to know?
For if God be for you who can be against you? If only we’d learn to take one step of every moment of every day on the simple assumption that he’s God, lives where he does, sharing his life with us on earth on the way to heaven then we truly will discover that everything that threatens to be over our head is already under his feet. Nothing more complicated about the Christian life than that. One thing we need to learn is simply to credit God as God with being big enough for the job. And give him the opportunity to demonstrate.

You know, whenever the Lord Jesus preached, people were astonished; he was an astonishing preacher. Did you ever notice that, as you turned to the record given of his life on earth in the gospels? For instance in the last 2 verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew’s gospel, Matthew chapter 7 verse 28, And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine. The astonishing doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Now remember, the Lord Jesus never preached from the New Testament, not because he didn’t like it, he just didn’t have it. Surprising how many Christians of long standing haven’t fully grasped the fact that the only bible the Lord Jesus ever had in his hand was the Old Testament. The only bible that the apostles used as they evangelized the then known world in one generation, Old Testament. The only bible the early church possessed, Old Testament. So it was the Old Testament the Lord Jesus took in his hand and yet the amazing thing is this: though this was that book from which the others were accustomed to preaching, when they listened to the Lord Jesus they were astonished. For it says in the last verse in that chapter that he taught them as one having authority.

Down on the farm we call it “Taking the bull by the horns.” and taking it out of the indoctrinated brain.

Frank:
I posted all the bibliography and references listed in the article that I posted from the article I wrote about after Naz accused me of Plagiarism. I did not post Penn et al for any other reason than to show the references. I did not validate Penn et al by that posting anymore than Jesus validated Moses because Jesus used Moses’ name in certain of the passages.

We are clearly on different wave lengths here and I can tell you’re getting angry, upset and frustrated which I never intended to happen. On top of that you keep accusing me of things like making unclean comments and even rebuking me. So because of this we should end this conversation in the sake of fostering peace.

I will leave you with some links for you to read if you want. I am not recommending or endorsing these sites/preachers in any way. It’s just information that more closely lines up with what I believe although I don’t necessarily agree with everything these people say or teach.

We are on different wave lengths here and it appears this discussion is making you upset and angry again which was not my intention. In the interest of fostering peace I think we should refrain from continuing on.

I understand what your beliefs are and I don’t agree as you do not agree with mine. You have to understand that not everybody is going to agree with you sometimes even when you think you are right and cannot understand why the other guy (me) doesn’t get it. We all come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences that we bring to the table so in one form or another I think bias creeps in whether we realize or not. You seem to see water baptism everywhere, even in Acts 3 that doesn’t even slightly allude to it. On the other had, I don’t see water baptism in as many places as you do. I know I’m speaking in general terms but just because we disagree doesn’t mean we are not both in Christ. Would you say that I am not in Christ if I don’t believe water baptism as you do, even though I’ve been baptized ?

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you or put words in your mouth as I tried to answer your questions or explain my position. I am not very good at expressing myself and sometimes cannot put my thoughts into words clearly.

I want to leave you with some links that you can read if you want that maybe more clearly explains my position although I do not endorse these links in any way or necessarily agree with everything they may say.

Our minds do in fact work much differently from one another. For example, when I read, “And when the days for purification according to the Law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord” (Luke 2:22) it tells me that Messiah in His infancy was brought to the city of the Great King to be presented to YHWH in accordance with God’s Law as recorded in Scripture by Moses. Any discerning reasonable person can recognize this as Messiah in and through His life validating the Law of Moses; i.e., demonstrating and supporting the truth of Moses’ Scriptural writings. Even more so when [as you are so wont not to do] one reads the entire account introduced by this very verse [Luke 2:22-32]. That’s your trouble. You always see things through prominence of your flawed human perspective and jump the gun; never by way of the sublime reflection revealed by Divine reality. You’re wholly incognizant of the fact there’s Someone far far greater than your own mortal self. It keeps the crusty scales upon your eyes. It keeps you bound in slothful stupor [Romans 12:11]. http://biblehub.com/romans/12-11.htm You often miss the salient point when writing your posts. You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel [Matthew 23:24]. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) And I am absolutely certain He won’t be relying on magic tricksters like Penn & Teller as some are wont to do.

For men swear by Him who is greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, guaranteed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters inside the veil, where Jesus/Yahshua has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:16-20)

Naz,
I don’t want to stop discussing theology with you, but if you want to stop, then of course, we will. For the record, I am not angry at all; I’m frustrated, because it seems you have argued against the typical preconceived arguments that we all have heard and dealt with from others previously, requiring me to deal with arguments I am not making. At the same time, I’ve painstakingly have given you very detailed answers and explanations to your questions, even though many of them were arguing against a different doctrine or theology than I presented. You seem to think I see baptism everywhere, but I really don’t, I only see it preached in and practiced by believers in the gospel. It’s an elementary principle that did not need to be re-addressed in the epistles, whereas you see the lack of it being preached in the epistles, as an indicator is meaningless for salvation to us today.
In the end, I believe and at least hope we both have benefitted from this exercise. You’ve made some compelling arguments and I see how one could view baptism as something other than a work of God.
If your willing, would like to discuss further because, even though I see what you believe about water baptism, I am not sure where this concept is rooted, but gathering from your comments, I believe it is rooted in John 3:1-10. I acknowledge and must agree if John 3:5 is talking about the water of the embryonic fluids of the womb, then baptism with water has nothing to do with salvation and I would have to come to the same conclusion as you.
What say you Naz?

And when the days for her purification (that’s Mary’s purification) according to the Law of Moses were completed…….” Which this also shows the patriarchal nonsense of gender discrimination in the Law of Moses, and why today women are discriminated against in the Churches and by Religions generally around the world; that a girl-birth makes a woman more impure than a boy-birth. I reject this. and you for all your wisdom follow blindly along the same paths because IT IS WRITTEN. Well, both common sense and nonsense are written and one needs discernment to cast out the dung and keep the diamonds but you keep the dung too and why you are to be pitied for retaining the indoctrination because of your lack of discernment. You don’t have the gonads to grapple with the ludicrous and reject it. And this nonsense about God’s Law………… It is all Man-Made but the clerics claim to be speaking on God’s behalf. I refer you to Leviticus 12 that starts with God spoke to Moses.

God doesn’t speak to anyone, religious clerics have always claimed that God speaks to them so that whatever they say goes and if you do not obey, you are ostracized or worse, killed for disobedience. When you see in today’s societies, stoning of women, hanging of homosexuals, honor killing and genital mutilations, executions for witchcraft, what you see is Old Testament cave minds, Old Testament Holy Book nonsense being put into practice today and that’s how the whole world groped through un-civilized barbarianism to come full circle today in many countries the practices in the days of Ancient religious insanity, when you could be killed for blasphemy, apostasy and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Thank God, the Metaphor, that those days are closing. I refer you to the Truth Fairy’s Theorems Of Nonsense and Corollaries following Leviticus 12

Childbirth
12:1-5 God spoke to Moses: “Tell the People of Israel, A woman who conceives and gives birth to a boy is ritually unclean for seven days, the same as during her menstruation. On the eighth day circumcise (mutilate the genitals) the boy. The mother must stay home another thirty-three days for purification from her bleeding. She may not touch anything consecrated or enter the Sanctuary until the days of her purification are complete. If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean for fourteen days, the same as during her menstruation. She must stay home for sixty-six days for purification from her bleeding.

(Purification makes it sound smooth and honorable but purification in this frame of reference means “dirty and filthy” as in “sugarcoating the bible”. For example, look in any modern translation of Isaiah 64:6, and you’ll find that, to a holy God, even our most righteous acts are like “filthy rags.” The original language doesn’t say “filthy rags”; it says “menstrual rags.” But that sounds a little too crass, so let’s just call them filthy instead; or rather let’s call it days of purification even more sweetly sugar coated. in the translation of Isaiah 64:6. The Hebrew expression בֶ֥גֶד עִדִּ֖ים literally means “garments of menstruation.” but English translations of the text do not convey the meaning of the original language. several translations of the Bible are faithful to the original text. For instance, the Complete Jewish Bible uses “menstrual rags,” the Douay-Rheims translation uses “the rag of a menstruous woman,” and the NET Bible uses “a menstrual rag.”) and for those who want to disparage and discredit the writer, here is the reference source where you can read the full article:

The question that must be asked is why do the versions differ in translating Isaiah 64:6?

6-7 “When the days for her purification for either a boy or a girl are complete, she will bring a yearling lamb for a Whole-Burnt-Offering and a pigeon or dove for an Absolution-Offering to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. He will offer it to God and make atonement for her. She is then clean from her flow of blood.

“These are the instructions for a woman who gives birth to either a boy or a girl.

8 “If she can’t afford a lamb, she can bring two doves or two pigeons, one for the Whole-Burnt-Offering and one for the Absolution-Offering. The priest will make atonement for her and she will be clean.”
==========================================
Truth Fairy’s Theorems Of Nonsense and Corollaries
FUNDAMENTALLY DEDUCTIVE.

Truth Fairy’s 1st Theorem of Nonsense:
“Religion gives the human ego the attitude of being right about something that is totally unknowable by the smartest of men.”

Truth Fairy’s 2nd Theorem of nonsense:
“Religious ritualism hypnotizes the Stupid Man into thinking he is smart enough to invent and thus know, the True God; at the same time religious ritualism hypnotizes the Smart Man into thinking he can be the earthly representative of the True God that the Stupid Man invents.”

Corollary 1:
“In this way, by using religious rituals, both stupid men and smart men are made proselytes for religion.”

Corollary 2:
“Claimant one invents and promotes the Creator and Claimant two invents and promotes the Messenger.”

Corollary 3:
“Both Claimants support each other in axiomatic delusion.”
===========================================

Scripture cannot validate itself, therefore scripture cannot validate God. Using the Bible to prove biblespeake is more than problematic. It is like a point in a circle trying to claim itself to be a point in a straight line leading directly to the source of its fiction.

“I want to leave you with some links that you can read if you want that maybe more clearly explains my position although I do not endorse these links in any way or necessarily agree with everything they may say.”

What you are really saying is that the links you are offering to clarify your position about baptism are not links you endorse in any way or necessarily agree with. So how do you expect Kevin to understand your position from a link you do not endorse or necessarily agree with “in any way”.You gotta love the lolability of doublespeake. It’s a masterpiece Naz.

Kevin, I don’t have time now to get into it but if you would like to explore John 3, that’s fine. Let’s promise to not sling mud at each other, I am not innocent in this matter either.

For starters, the born of water could refer to the womb since Nicodemus asks “Can a man be born again when he is old. Can he enter into his mothers womb and be born”. This seems to fit the immediate context.

In the next verse Jesus says that it takes water and spirit to enter the kingdom. Then He goes on about flesh giving birth to flesh and Spirit giving birth to spirit. It seems likely that he is distinguishing between natural human birth and being born of God (Spirit).

To me the verse that makes it clear is verse 8, where Jesus stresses the birth of the Spirit connecting that with being born again. So we have a natural birth (flesh) and a spiritual birth (Spirit). Verse 8 does not mention water so I think being born again is being born of the Spirit only. This is consistent with the rest of scripture I believe.

Now if water referred to baptism, I don’t see how Nicodemus would have a clue to what Jesus was talking about since baptism in Jesus Name would come after as preached by Peter. I believe the main point Jesus was trying to make was that just as we are born of human flesh and are brought into this world, in like manner we must be born of the Holy Spirit to enter God’s Kingdom.

The only question is why does Jesus mention water? Is it not obvious that we are all born of water ? This could be His way of helping Nicodemus understand that it takes 2 births, which is why he called it being born “again”.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Naz:
Jesus is using born of water metaphorically; it is the cleansing act for the body and goes back to the ritual washing and cleansing with water of the altar, hands etc; this ritual didn’t start with John it was a magnification of the long designed ritual in the early days. So Jesus mentioned the born of water to emphasize what Nicodemus already practiced and believed regarding the cleansing power of water; after this he says what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit so the spirit cannot be cleansed by water baptism anymore than the symbolic cup he was to drink from can do anything for the spirit..

When someone makes reference to another, it does not necessarily mean they endorse the reference but uses the reference because it is the prevailing body of work generally accepted. It is this same erroneous reasoning you used, trying to link my post to a validation of Penn & Teller, which could not be further from the truth. I do not know anything about Penn & Teller and I don’t care to know anything about Penn & Teller; I only referenced the references the writer of the article used but I didn’t write the article nor did I endorse or validate the references and neither did Jesus in so many of the listed scriptures you gleaned written by somebody else, and why you regurgitated that which you yourself did not compose.

In this same way Jesus referenced Moses as the writer of the Laws because Moses was the prevailing authority of reference to the general population and in particular the Clerics. To exemplify this check out the scripture in Matt 5:2-22 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
AND THEN GOES ON TO EXPAND THE LAW:
22 BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

“AND THEN GOES ON TO EXPAND THE LAW”:
Your choice of the term “EXPAND THE LAW” proves fallacious as Messiah Yahshua clarifies [make (a statement or situation) less confused and more clearly comprehensible.] God’s Law/the Law of Moses. He does not “expand” or augment [make (something) greater by adding to it; increase] the Law of Moses/God’s Law. Your statement misinterprets thus misrepresents Messiah’s instruction while serving in corrupt contradiction to & violation of: “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Also, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32) I refer you to Matthew 7:1-5.

I reiterate post # 75.

“Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.” (Jeremiah 33:3)

Post 295 is better directed to Jesus because Jesus did expand the Law by including the thoughts that could lead to the deed. You are again trying to justify your erroneous, literal understanding of the translated words in the bible without understanding the message. You will never be able to open your mind to Jesus/ Message, indeed understand biblical messages generally, by myopic misrepresenting the message, the context, the plain truth of metaphor, idioms and normal language.

Why do you think that some bible translations use the term “filthy rags” while others use “menstrual cloths”…..and insisting “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” You are so filled with supernatural literal-meaning scriptures, you are wearing religious blinders like those put on horses to keep them on the straight path.

BUT you are a good Pharisee Frank and you need some tough talk:
If you’ve got a head full of scripture then what you’ve got is a head full of ideas that have stopped growing; that’ll be a head full of dead ideas then. And you have no right to have those ideas respected or taken seriously. You’re simply not entitled to it and you’ve certainly got no business using them to tell other people how they should live their lives by interpreting scriptures through the haze of supernatural myopism because you don’t know anything.

Your repetitive overuse of Yahshua sounds like a sneeze in English, bless you.

Post 292:
Hey Frank:
Tell it to Jesus that he took away from the Law …Tell Jesus “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.”

JOHN 8:
3-6 The religion scholars and Pharisees led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?” They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him.

6-8 Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.” Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt.

9-10 Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?”

11 “No one, Master.”

“Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”

YOU’RE MISSING SOMETHING IMPORTANT AND DON’T KNOW IT!
12 Jesus once again addressed them: “I am the world’s Light. No one who follows me stumbles around in the darkness. I provide plenty of light to live in.”

13 The Pharisees objected, “All we have is your word on this. We need more than this to go on.”

14-18 Jesus replied, “You’re right that you only have my word. But you can depend on it being true. I know where I’ve come from and where I go next. You don’t know where I’m from or where I’m headed. You decide according to what you can see and touch. I don’t make judgments like that. But even if I did, my judgment would be true because I wouldn’t make it out of the narrowness of my experience but in the largeness of the One who sent me, the Father. That fulfills the conditions set down in God’s Law: that you can count on the testimony of two witnesses. And that is what you have: You have my word and you have the word of the Father who sent me.”

19 They said, “Where is this so-called Father of yours?”

Jesus said, “You’re looking right at me and you don’t see me. How do you expect to see the Father? If you knew me, you would at the same time know the Father.”

Do you know what Jesus wrote with his finger in the dirt? I bet you don’t know and I bet you could not even muster up a good guess. You might like to know what he wrote but you will not come to me and so you will remain blind.

The Letter of the Law is literal; the Spirit of the Law is spiritual; you are literal; I am spiritual; you put you faith in literal water baptism; I put my faith in Jesus word from the Father, it is spiritual baptism———- “Liter-al and Spirit-al” Get it or get lost.

Frank, thanks for the links to John MacArthur on being born again. I watched a couple of them and thought the topic was well presented. I am not sold on divine election other than the fact that God knows the future and knows who will be saved. I don’t believe God picks one person and not another just because….he desires that all come to repentance and no one should perish. Outside of that, the presentation on being born again was well done and I was generally in agreement with it.

BREAKING NEWS:
Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, died during his sleep today.
Justice Scalia will be most missed by Conservative Politicians and most notable for his stand on Second Amendment Rights, a pro death penalty advocate, an anti abortionist and at every opportunity a vote against gay rights.

“IN THE BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.” Thus this passage speaks about the power of language:

At the time the Hebrew scriptures were written, spoken language was considered to be very powerful. With a cosmology that viewed the creation as the result of an utterance, the name of the creator was considered very powerful knowledge. Because the pronunciation of the name of God considered to have such great power, it was kept a secret- only the highest-ranked members of the priesthood were entrusted with the knowledge. Even then, the Name was only pronounced during one time of the year, during the Feast of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

The commandment against “taking the Lord’s name in vain” had nothing to do with making disrespectful comments, but referred to the name’s inherent power. Similar name traditions existed in Babylonian and Egyptian religion.

It is because of this stricture against pronouncing the name that even after the Hebrew language developed a system for marking vowels in written scripture, its pronunciation was concealed by substituting the vowel markings and pronunciation of the word Adonai, Lord.

Christians translating Hebrew texts did not understand this tradition, and due to the vowel marks, mistranslated the text of the name as “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.” In modern Judaism, the tetragrammaton is commonly referred to as “HaShem,” meaning, “The Name,” and the pronunciation rules still apply.

Christian kabbalists added the letter “Shin”, rendering “YHShH,” or Yeheshua, Jesus, as proof of the divine origin of Christ.

The tetragrammaton is central to the doctrines Esoteric Kabbalistic traditions, where it is equivalent to the four kabbalistic worlds of creation, the four elements, the four archangels, and the four cardinal directions.

Contrary to what some Christians believe (and at least one cult), Jehovah is not the Divine Name revealed to Israel. The name Jehovah is a product of mixing different words and different alphabets of different languages. Due to a fear of accidentally taking God’s name in vain (Leviticus 24:16), the Jews basically quit saying it out loud altogether. Instead, when reading Scripture aloud, the Jews substituted the tetragrammaton YHWH with the word Adonai (“Lord”). Even in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the translators substituted Kurios (“Lord”) for the Divine Name. Eventually, the vowels from Adonai (“Lord”) or Elohim (“God”) found their way in between the consonants of YHWH, thus forming YaHWeH. But this interpolation of vowels does not mean that was how God’s name was originally pronounced. In fact, we aren’t entirely sure if YHWH should have two syllables or three.

Any number of vowel sounds can be inserted within YHWH, and Jewish scholars are as uncertain of the real pronunciation as Christian scholars are. Jehovah is actually a much later (probably 16th-century) variant. The word Jehovah comes from a three-syllable version of YHWH, YeHoWeH. The Y was replaced with a J (although Hebrew does not even have a J sound) and the W with a V, plus the extra vowel in the middle, resulting in JeHoVaH. These vowels are the abbreviated forms of the imperfect tense, the participial form, and the perfect tense of the Hebrew being verb (English is)—thus the meaning of Jehovah could be understood as “He who will be, is, and has been.”

Kevin, you should take the time to listen to John MacArthur’s take on John 3. Frank posted some links a little while ago. While I don’t agree with MacArthur on everything he teaches, I must say he did a good job in the interpretation of John 3. So much so that I retract my previous interpretation that born of water refers to natural birth. I think his explanation better fits the scripture and makes more sense. Some of those sermons are very long and he is long winded as he tries to fill up his church service time which is understandable, but nonetheless he makes some very good points that I think you can benefit from in understanding the gospel of grace.

If you ignore his predestination teaching, his dissertation on John 3 is very good in my opinion.

I’ve been meaning to get back with you and address John 3, but I’ve been swamped with other things and travel so I just haven’t had time to send you my take on John 3. I promise and expect that I will within the next week or two, if not sooner.

Meanwhile, I am familiar with MacArthur’s teaching on John 3. The end result of his teaching is no different from the end result of what you previously believed, meaning, water baptism is not part of the “born again” experience. It is good, however, you understand “born of water” is not referring to natural childbirth. Had Jesus been referring to natural child birth, He would have referred to being born of blood, not water, see John 1:13 – “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.

Due to the various teachings on John 3, it takes a little more effort to get my points across, therefore, with the schedule I’ve had, I haven’t had the time to do so. However, I would like you to chew on a couple of things in the meantime.

1) The Greek word that is translated “again” is “anothen” (vs.3), can carry meaning “from above” or “again”. Jesus meant it to carry both meanings: man must be born of God, AGAIN! Jesus is speaking about God doing His work in creation of man again; just like He did when He made man in His sinless and Holy image and likeness in the beginning; man defined as Adam and his bride, Eve. Jesus is strictly speaking about a work of God, not man; God creating man in His own image (sinless) and likeness (Holy) again (John 1:11-13) so man can enter the kingdom of heaven.

2) Man; Adam and Eve were both made of flesh and spirit in the image of God, therefore if man is to be “born again” in the image and likeness of God, man needs to be born of again of flesh and spirit in the image and likeness of God.

I have the time to respond to short topic things right now, but I really am looking forward to sending the details of my take on John 3.

In the meantime I have a question for you: How did God make man in His own image and according to His likeness? Please give me you answer? It’s really an interesting question, so think about it before you respond. It will help with the discussion of John 3.

how much more will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:14-15)

“…….a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant………”

The penalty of death by crucifixion took place because of religious insanity and the crucifixion convicted the religious leaders in that generation of the absolute nonsense of Absolute Certainty. This same nonsense is religion’s pollution de la guerre in proselytizing believers today because church dogma has never changed since the events of two thousand years ago.

Religious believers today are so twisted in their aggressive, reverse ideology of promoting Death Dogma instead of communicating The Way, The Truth and The Life that epitomizes Jesus the Christ.

This continual church dogma is a repugnant transgression of what Jesus stood for and campaigned against that vilified religious leaders insomuch that the powers in the church hated him and went the distance to kill him for testifying that their works were evil.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

Then Jesus/Yahshua cried out in the temple, teaching and saying, “You both know Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.” (John 7:28)

Is there Life on Mars (Mars Hill, that is)?:

Isaiah 43:10

“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD/YHWH,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD/YHWH, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)